Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 74


Currently, the disciplines of biology and physics, and all their sub-branches are
generally practiced by those with little knowledge of the others. Without
symbiosis between them, attempts to unify the universe will remain a dead
Robert Lanza



S-a dovedit stiintific: MOARTEA NU EXISTA!- ......................................................................................................... 4
Is Death An Illusion? Evidence Suggests Death Isnt the End ................................................................................. 6
Biocentrism: How Life Creates the Universe ...................................................................................................... 18
Authors say cosmology misses the big picture unless it includes biology ....................................................... 18
Muddy universe ................................................................................................................................................ 19
A scientific swamp ............................................................................................................................................ 20
The disappearing kitchen ................................................................................................................................. 20
Where is the universe? ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Gone for keeps ................................................................................................................................................. 23
Goldilocks universe.......................................................................................................................................... 24
No time to lose ................................................................................................................................................. 25
Space-out .......................................................................................................................................................... 26
Where do we go from here? ............................................................................................................................ 26
The universe in your head .................................................................................................................................... 27
Six mind-blowing ideas ......................................................................................................................................... 33
Weird life under our nose?............................................................................................................................... 33
Did the moon make us possible? ..................................................................................................................... 34
Life interrupted on Mars? ................................................................................................................................ 34
Greenhouse extinctions.................................................................................................................................... 34
Humanity's mind-blowing rise .......................................................................................................................... 35
Dark morality .................................................................................................................................................... 35
Reception to Biocentrism by Scientists & Scholars .............................................................................................. 36
From physicist Scott M. Tysons book The Unobservable Universe......................................................... 37
Robert Lanza ......................................................................................................................................................... 38
Biography.......................................................................................................................................................... 38
Scientific work .................................................................................................................................................. 39
Stem cell research ........................................................................................................................................ 39
Clinical trials for blindness ................................................................................................................................ 39
First published report of embryonic stem cells in humans .............................................................................. 40
Biocentrism....................................................................................................................................................... 40
Awards and public commentary....................................................................................................................... 40
Publications ...................................................................................................................................................... 40
Books ................................................................................................................................................................ 41
References ........................................................................................................................................................ 41
External links .................................................................................................................................................... 43
Biocentrism builds on quantum physics by putting life into the equation .......................................................... 44


By Robert Lanza ........................................................................................................................................... 44
ACT- Press Releases .............................................................................................................................................. 54
ACTs Clinical Partner Receives FDA Approval to Initiate Clinical Trial Using the Companys hESC-derived Cells
to Treat Severe Myopia .................................................................................................................................... 54
About Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. ............................................................................................................. 55
About the Jules Stein Eye Institute at UCLA ..................................................................................................... 55
Forward-Looking Statements ........................................................................................................................... 55
Other Links: ...................................................................................................................................................... 56
Scientific Papers ............................................................................................................................................... 56
PROF. DR. DUMITRU CONSTANTIN DULCAN- autor al Inteligenta Materiei ..................................................... 57
D.C. Dulcan: n spatele tuturor lucrurilor e Dumnezeu ........................................................................................ 58
Diminea de var ............................................................................................................................................ 58
Devenim ceea ce gndim- ................................................................................................................................ 59
"Cnd crezi, i mobilizezi toate mecanismele de vindecare" .......................................................................... 60
.- Criza lumii de azi nu e i o criz a spiritului? ................................................................................................. 60
"i mulumesc lui Dumnezeu c nu m-a fcut o frunz"................................................................................... 60
"Dac m-am nscut n Romnia, nseamn c trebuie s fiu aici" ................................................................... 61
CAPITOLUL 10 CRIZA SPIRITUAL A OMULUI MODERN ............................................................................... 63
Suntem o specie sinuciga!............................................................................................................................. 66
CAPITOLUL 11 AVERTISMENTE DIN ETER" PENTRU O NOU SPIRITUALITATE........................................... 67
Alte resurse pe Internet si site-uri pe care le urmresc sau le recomand: ...................................................... 71


Este ceva asemanator cu ceea ce sustine si Prof. Dr. Dumitru Constantin Dulcan.

S-A DOVEDIT STIINTIFIC: MOARTEA NU EXISTA!http://www.enational.ro/live/s-a-dovedit-stiintific-moartea-nu-exista-232315.html/#ixzz2JCkviB54

Robert Lanza, cercetator la Advanced Cell Technology, a dovedit prin fizica cuantica
(http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/is-death-an-illusion-evidence-suggests-death-isntthe-end/ ) faptul ca moartea nu exista. Cand trupul isi termina bateriile, mai raman 20 de wati de energie
O noua teorie stiintifica demonstreaza ca moartea trupului nu este punctul terminus al calatoriei sufletului,
asa cum, de altfel, sustineau si stramosii nostri, dacii.
Multiversul ne asteapta

Robert Lanza, cercetator la Advanced Cell Technology

Prin observatii ce tin de fizica cuantica s-a ajuns la notiunea de lumi multiple sau multivers, in loc de
univers. Noua teorie care demonstreaza ca moartea nu exista are la baza conceptul de biocentrism.

Stravechiul pom al vietii, care arata ca ce este in Cer, asa si pe Pamant

Adica, exista un numar infinit de universuri si tot ceea ce este posibil sa se intample are loc in unele dintre
acestea. Iar ceea ce nu este posibil sa se intample este doar moartea! Toate aceste multiple universuri exista
simultan si, indiferent ce se intampla intr-unul dintre acestea, actiunea se continua intr-un altul.

Podul Einstein-Rosen, calea de legatura intre universuri


Daca un corp este distrus intr-un univers, nucleul energetic de 20 de wati masurat stiintific care a facut
creierul sa functioneze ca un computer nu se stinge odata cu trupul. Se stie de ani multi ca energia nu se
distruge, se transforma, iar fantana energo-informationala a creierului, cum au numit cercetatorii cei 20 de
wati, transcede intr-o nou univers.
Timpul si spatiul, instrumente pentru creier

Bratarile sacre ale dacilor, un pod Einstein-Rosen pentru sufletele nemuritoare

Un experiment, publicat recent in Science, arata comportamentul unei particule ce trebuia sa treaca
simultan prin doua separatoare de fascicule. Particula a trecut prin primul separator de fascicule. Cat timp
aceasta a petrecut in separator, un Observator oarecare se poate decide sa actioneze comutatorul celui de-al
doilea separator, pornindu-l sau oprindu-l. Ceea ce Observatorul a decis la acel moment, a determinat
particula sa se comporte intr-un anume fel, sa treaca mai departe sau sa mai astepte. Indiferent de alegerea
pe care a facut-o Observatorul, particula este cea care experimenteaza optiunile. Ideea e ca manifestarea
energiei transcede ideea clasica de timp si spatiu. Ganditi-va la cei 20 de wati de energie ca la un
holoproiector, care afiseaza rezultatele experimentului pe un ecran. Indiferent daca Observatorul a oprit sau a
pornit al doilea separator de fascicule, holoproiectorul ramane activat de aceeasi baterie de 20 de wati.
Conform Biocentrismului, spatiul si timpul sunt doar instrumente pe care creierul uman, bateria de 20 de
wati, le foloseste ca sa aranjeze intr-o forma accesibila informatiile primite. Mintea are nevoie de ele.
Bateria nu, doar le proceseaza la un moment dat, dar functionarea ei categoric nu depinde de timp si spatiu.
Legatura Cer-Pamant

Vorba lui Einstein:Oamenii ca mine stiu ca diferenta intre trecut, prezent si viitor nu este decat o iluzie
perpetuata de incapatanarea umana. Orice se intampla cu trupul uman, bateria este cea care va
experimenta trecerea prin al doilea separator de fascicule. Aici intervine Multiversul. Intr-un univers, trupul
poate sa moara, dar simultan, in alt univers, el poate continua sa traiasca. Practic, ceea ce au descoperit
cercetatorii acum, in trecut se numea Pomul vietii, a carui filosofie se regaseste in toate culturile antice. Este
Thorul, legatura Cer Pamant, care constituie calea prin care fantana nemuritoare de energie, bateria de
20 de wati purtatoare de infoenergie sare dintr-un univers in altul. In stiinta, Thorul poarta denumirea de
Podul Einstein-Rosen. De fapt, sunt mai multe poduri, fiecare catre alt univers, care uneste gaurile negre.
Conform acestei teorii, universul in care ne aflam noi se afla in interiorul unei gauri negre, care exista in
interiorul altui univers si tot asa. Cine este Observatorul care alege sa ne comute la un moment dat, acordand
bateriei energoinformationale sa experimenteze si alte universuri? Rugaciunea Tatal nostru contine
esenta acestei teorii: Tatal nostru care esti in ceruri ()/ Faca-se voia Ta, precum in Cer, asa si pe Pamant!



View article on Psychology Today

By Robert Lanza

After the death of his old friend, Albert Einstein said Now Besso has departed from this strange world a little
ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us know that the distinction between past, present and future
is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
New evidence continues to suggest that Einstein was right death isan illusion.
Our classical way of thinking is based on the belief that the world has an objective observer-independent
existence. But a long list of experiments shows just the opposite. We think life is just the activity of carbon and
an admixture of molecules we live awhile and then rot into the ground.
We believe in death because weve been taught we die. Also, of course, because we associate ourselves with
our body and we know bodies die. End of story. But biocentrism a new theory of everything tells us death
may not be the terminal event we think. Amazingly, if you add life and consciousness to the equation, you can
explain some of the biggest puzzles of science. For instance, it becomes clear why space and time and even
the properties of matter itself depend on the observer. It also becomes clear why the laws, forces, and
constants of the universe appear to be exquisitely fine-tuned for the existence of life.
Until we recognize the universe in our heads, attempts to understand reality will remain a road to nowhere.
Consider the weather outside: You see a blue sky, but the cells in your brain could be changed so the sky
looks green or red. In fact, with a little genetic engineering we could probably make everything that is red
vibrate or make a noise, or even make you want to have sex like with some birds. You think its bright out, but
your brain circuits could be changed so it looks dark out. You think it feels hot and humid, but to a tropical frog
it would feel cold and dry. This logic applies to virtually everything. Bottom line: What you see could not be
present without your consciousness.
In truth, you cant see anything through the bone that surrounds your brain. Your eyes are not portals to the
world. Everything you see and experience right now even your body is a whirl of information occurring in
your mind. According to biocentrism, space and time arent the hard, cold objects we think. Wave your hand
through the air if you take everything away, whats left? Nothing. The same thing applies for time. Space and
time are simply the tools for putting everything together.
Consider the famous two-slit experiment. When scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier,
the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other. But if you dont watch, it acts like a
wave and can go through both slits at the same time. So how can a particle change its behavior depending on
whether you watch it or not? The answer is simple reality is a process that involves your consciousness.
Or consider Heisenbergs famous uncertainty principle. If there is really a world out there with particles just
bouncing around, then we should be able to measure all their properties. But you cant. For instance, a
particles exact location and momentum cant be known at the same time. So why should it matter to a
particle what you decide to measure? And how can pairs of entangled particles be instantaneously connected
on opposite sides of the galaxy as if space and time dont exist? Again, the answer is simple: because theyre
not just out there space and time are simply tools of our mind.
Death doesnt exist in a timeless, spaceless world. Immortality doesnt mean a perpetual existence in time, but
resides outside of time altogether.


Our linear way of thinking about time is also inconsistent with another series of recent experiments. In 2002,
scientists showed that particles of light photons knew in advance what their distant twins would do in
the future. They tested the communication between pairs of photons. They let one photon finish its journey
it had to decide whether to be either a wave or a particle. Researchers stretched the distance the other
photon took to reach its own detector. However, they could add a scrambler to prevent it from collapsing into
a particle. Somehow, the first particle knew what the researcher was going to do before it happened and
across distances instantaneously as if there were no space or time between them. They decide not to become
particles before their twin even encounters the scrambler. It doesnt matter how we set up the experiment.
Our mind and its knowledge is the only thing that determines how they behave. Experiments consistently
confirm these observer-dependent effects.
Bizarre? Consider another experiment that was recently published in the prestigious scientific
journal Science (Jacques et al, 315, 966, 2007). Scientists in France shot photons into an apparatus, and showed
that what they did could retroactively change something that had already happened in the past. As the
photons passed a fork in the apparatus, they had to decide whether to behave like particles or waves when
they hit a beam splitter. Later on well after the photons passed the fork the experimenter could randomly
switch a second beam splitter on and off. It turns out that what the observer decided at that point,
determined what the particle actually did at the fork in the past. At that moment, the experimenter chose his
Of course, we live in the same world. But critics claim this behavior is limited to the microscopic world. But this
two-world view (that is, one set of physical laws for small objects, and another for the rest of the universe
including us) has no basis in reason and is being challenged in laboratories around the world. A couple years
ago, researchers published a paper in Nature (Jost et al, 459, 683, 2009) showing that quantum behavior extends
into the everyday realm. Pairs of vibrating ions were coaxed to entangle so their physical properties remained
bound together when separated by large distances (spooky action at a distance, as Einstein put it). Other
experiments with huge molecules called Buckyballs also show that quantum reality extends beyond the
microscopic world. And in 2005, KHC03 crystals exhibited entanglement ridges one-half inch high, quantum
behavior nudging into the ordinary world of human-scale objects.
We generally reject the multiple universes of Star Trek as fiction, but it turns out there is more than a morsel of
scientific truth to this popular genre. One well-known aspect of quantum physics is that observations cant be
predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations each with a different probability. One
mainstream explanation, the many-worlds interpretation, states that each of these possible observations
corresponds to a different universe (the multiverse). There are an infinite number of universes and
everything that could possibly happen occurs in some universe. Death does not exist in any real sense in these
scenarios. All possible universes exist simultaneously, regardless of what happens in any of them.
Life is an adventure that transcends our ordinary linear way of thinking. When we die, we do so not in the
random billiard-ball-matrix but in the inescapable-life-matrix. Life has a non-linear dimensionality its like a
perennial flower that returns to bloom in the multiverse.
The influences of the senses, said Ralph Waldo Emerson has in most men overpowered the mind to the
degree that the walls of space and time have come to look solid, real and insurmountable; and to speak with
levity of these limits in the world is the sign of insanity.
Robert Lanza has published extensively in leading scientific journals. His book Biocentrism lays out the scientific argument for his theory
of everything.
View article on Psychology Today
Author ANNE RICE writes on her Facebook page:


Is it night where you are? Are you having trouble sleeping? Try reading this article [Biocentrism: Is Death an Illusion?]. Comments
welcome. (And thanks to the friend who sent this to me by email.)

This Bloggers Book from


by Robert Lanza, Bob Berman

The Most Amazing Experiment

From Biocentrism (Robert Lanza and Bob Berman)
Quantum theory has unfortunately become a catch-all phrase for trying to prove various kinds of New Age
nonsense. Its unlikely that the authors of the many books making wacky claims of time-travel or mind-control,


and who use quantum theory as proof, have the slightest knowledge of physics or could explain even the
rudiments of QT. The popular 2004 film, What the Bleep Do We Know? is a good case in point. The movie starts out
claiming quantum theory has revolutionized our thinking which is true enough but then, without
explanation or elaboration, goes on to say that it proves people can travel into the past or choose which
reality you want.
QT says no such thing. QT deals with probabilities, and the likely places particles may appear, and likely actions
they will take. And while, as we shall see, bits of light and matter do indeed change behavior depending on
whether they are being observed, and measured particles do indeed appear to amazingly influence the past
behavior of other particles, this does not in any way mean that humans can travel into their past or influence
their own history.
Given the widespread generic use of QT, plus the paradigm-changing tenets of biocentrism, using QT as
evidence might raise eyebrows among the skeptical. For this reason, its important that readers have some
genuine understanding of QTs actual experiments and can grasp the real results rather than the
preposterous claims so often associated with it. For those with a little patience, this chapter can provide a lifealtering understanding of the latest version of one of the most famous and amazing experiments in the history
of physics.
The astonishing double-slit experiment, which has changed our view of the universe and serves to support
biocentrism has been performed repeatedly for many decades. This specific version summarizes an
experiment published in Physical Review A, (65, 033818) in 2002. But its really merely another variation, a
tweak to a demonstration that has been performed again and again for three quarters of a century.
It all really started early in the 20th century when physicists were still struggling with a very old question
whether light is made of particles called photons, or whether instead they are waves of energy. Isaac Newton
believed particles. But by the late 19th century, waves seemed more reasonable. In those early days, some
physicists presciently and correctly thought that even solid objects might have a wave nature as well.
To find out, we use a source of either light or particles. In the classic double-slit experiment, the particles are
usually electrons, since they are small, fundamental (they cant be divided into anything else) and easy to
beam at a distant target. A classic TV set, for example, directs electrons at the screen. We start by aiming light
at a detector wall. First, however, the light must pass through an initial barrier with two holes. We can shoot a
flood of light or just a single indivisible photon at a time the results remain the same. Each bit of light has a
50-50 change of going through the right or the left slit. After awhile, all these photon-bullets will logically
create a pattern falling preferentially in the middle of the detector with fewer on the fringes, since most
paths from the light source go more-or-less straight ahead. The laws of probability say that we should see a
cluster of hits like this:

When plotted on a graph (in which number of hits is vertical, and position on the detector screen horizontal)
the expected result for a barrage of particles is to indeed have more hits in the middle and fewer near the
edges, which produces a curve like this:


But thats not the result we actually get. When experiments like this are performed and they have been
done thousands of times during the past century we find that the bits of light instead create a curious

Plotted on a graph, the patterns hits look like this:

In theory, those smaller side peaks around the main one should be symmetrical. In practice, were dealing
with probabilities and individual bits of light, so the result usually deviates a bit from the ideal. Anyway, the
big question here is: Why this pattern?
Turns out, its exactly what wed expect if light is made of waves, not particles. Waves collide and interfere
with each other, causing ripples. If you toss two pebbles into a pond at the same time, the waves of each meet
each other and produce places of higher-than-normal, or lower-than-normal water-rises. Some waves
reinforce each other, or, if ones crest meets anothers trough, they cancel out at that spot.
So this early 20th-century result of an interference pattern, which can only be caused by waves, showed
physicists that light is a wave, or at least acts that way when this experiment is performed. The fascinating
thing is that when solid physical bodies like electrons were used, they got exactly the same result. Solid


particles have a wave-nature too! So, right from the get-go, the double slit experiment yielded amazing
information about the nature of reality. Solid objects have a wave nature!
Unfortunately, or fortunately, this was just the appetizer. Few realized that true strangeness was only
beginning. The first oddity happens when just one just photon or electron is allowed to fly through the
apparatus at a time. After enough have gone through and been individually detected, this same interference
pattern emerges. But how can this be? With what is each of those electrons or photons interfering? How can we
get an interference pattern when theres only indivisible object in there at a time?

A single photon hits the detector.

A second photon hits the detector.

A third photon hits the detector.

Somehow, these individual photons add up to an interference pattern!



There has never been a truly satisfactory answer for this. Wild ideas keep emerging. Could there be other
electrons or photons next door in a parallel universe, from another experimenter doing the same thing?
Could their electrons be interfering with ours? Thats so far-fetched, few believe it.
The usual interpretation of why we see an interference pattern is that photons or electrons have two choices
when they encounter the double slit. They do not actually exist as real entities in real places until they are
observed, and they arent observed until they hit the final detection barrier. So when they reach the slits, they
exercise their probabilistic freedom of taking bothchoices. Even though actual electrons or photons are indivisible,
and never split themselves under any conditions whatsoever, their existence as probability waves are
another story. Thus, what goes through the slit are not actual entities but just probabilities. . THE
through, we see the overall interference pattern as all probabilities congeal into actual entities making impacts
and being observed as waves.
Sure its weird, but this, apparently, is how reality works. And this is just the very beginning of Quantum
Weirdness. QT, as we mentioned last chapter, has a principle called complementarity which says that we can
observe objects to be one thing or another or have one position or property or another, but never both. It
depends on what one is looking for, and what measuring equipment is used.
Now, suppose we wish to know which slit a given electron or photon has gone through, on its way to the
barrier. Its a fair enough question, and its easy enough to find out. We can use polarized light (meaning light
whose waves vibrate either horizontally or vertically or else slowly rotate their orientation) and when such a
mixture is used, we get the same result as before. But now lets determine which slit each photon is going
through. Many different things have been used, but in this experiment well use a quarter wave plate in
front of each slit. Each quarter wave plate alters the polarity of the light in a specific way. The detector can let
us know the polarity of the incoming photon. So by noting the polarity of the photon when its detected, we
know which slit it went through.

Now we repeat the experiment, shooting photons through the slits one at a time, except this time we know
which slot each photon goes through. Now theresults dramatically change. Even though QWPs do not alter
photons except for harmlessly shifting their polarities (later we prove that this change in results is not caused
by the QWPs), now we no longer get the interference pattern. Now the curve suddenly changes to what wed
expect if the photons were particles:



Somethings happened. Turns out, the mere act of measurement, of learning the path of each photon,
destroyed the photons freedom to remain blurry and undefined and take both paths until it reached the
barriers. Its wave function must have collapsed at our measuring device, the QWPs, as it instantly chose to
become a particle and go through one slit or the other. Its wave nature was lost as soon as it lost its blurry
probabilistic not-quite-real state. But why should the photon have chosen to collapse its wave-function? How
did it know that we, the observer, could learn which slit it went through?
Countless attempts to get around this, by the greatest minds of the past century, have all failed. Our
knowledge of the photon or electron path alone caused it to become a definite entity ahead of the previous time.
Of course physicists also wondered whether this bizarre behavior might be caused by some interaction
between the which-way QWP detector or various other devices that have been tried, and the photon. But
no. Totally different which-way detectors have been built, none of which in any way disturbs the photon. Yet
we always lose the interference pattern. The bottom line conclusion, reached after many years, is that its
simply not possible to gain which-way information and the interference pattern caused by energy-waves.
Were back to QTs complementarity that you can measure and learn just one of a pair of characteristics, but
never both at the same time. If you fully learn about one, you will know nothing about the other. And just in
case youre suspicious of the quarter wave plates, let it be said when used in all other contexts, including
double slit experiments but without information-providing polarization-detecting barriers at the end, the mere
act of changing a photons polarization never has the slightest effect on the creation of an interference
Okay, lets try something else. In nature, as we saw in the last chapter, there are entangled particles or bits
of light (or matter) that were born together and therefore share a wave function according to QT. They can
fly apart even across the width of the galaxy and yet they still retain this connection, this knowledge of
each other. If one is meddled with in any way so that it loses its anythings possible nature and has to
instantly decide to materialize with, say, a vertical polarization, its twin will instantaneously then materialize
too, and with a horizontal polarity. If one becomes an electron with an up spin, the twin will too, but with a
down spin. Theyre eternally linked in a complementary way.
So now lets use a device which shoots off entangled twins in different directions. Experimenters can create
the entangled photons by using a special crystal called beta-barium borate (BBO). Inside the crystal, an
energetic violet photon from a laser is converted to two red photons, each with half the energy (twice the
wavelength) of the original, so theres no net gain or loss of energy. The two outbound entangled photons are
sent off in different directions. Well call their paths direction p and s.



Well set up our original experiment with no which-way information measured. Except now, we add a
coincidence counter. The role of the coincidence counter is to prevent us from learning the polarity of the
photons at detector S unless a photon also hits detector P. One twin goes through the slits (call this photon s)
while the other merely barrels ahead to a second detector. Only when both detectors register hits at about
the same time do we know that both twins have completed their journeys. Only then does something register
on our equipment. The resulting pattern at detector S is our familiar interference pattern:

This makes sense. We havent learned which slit any particular photon or electron has taken. So the objects
have remained probability waves.
But lets now get tricky. First well restore those QWPs so we can get which-way information for photons
traveling along path S.



As expected, the interference pattern now vanishes, replaced with the particle pattern, the single curve.

So far so good. But now lets destroy our ability to measure the which-way paths of the s photons, but without
interfering with them in any way . We can do this by placing a polarizing window in the path of the other photon P, far
away. This plate will stop the second detector from registering coincidences. Itll measure only some of the
photons, and effectively scramble up the double-signals. Since a coincidence-counter is essential here in
delivering information about the completion of the twins journeys, it has now been rendered thoroughly
unreliable. The entire apparatus will now be uselessly unable to let us learn which slit individual photons take
when they travel along path S because we wont be able to compare them with their twins since nothing
registers unless the coincidence counter allows it to. And lets be clear: Weve left the QWPs in place for
photon S. All weve done is to meddle with the p photons path in a way that removes our ability to use the
coincidence counter to gain which-way knowledge. (The set-up, to review, delivers information to us, registers
hits, only when polarity is measured at detector S AND the coincidence counter tells us that either a
matching or non-matching polarity has been simultaneously registered by the twin photon at detector P). The

Theyre waves again. The interference pattern is back. The physical places on the back screen where the
photons or electrons taking path s hit have now changed. Yet we did nothing to these photons paths, from their
creation at the crystal all the way to the final detector. We even left the QWPs in place. All we did was meddle
with the twin photon far away so that it destroyed our ability to learn information. The only change was in our
minds. How could photons taking path S possibly know that we put that other polarizer in place somewhere
else, far from their own paths? And QT tells us that wed get this same result even if we placed the
information-ruiner at the other end of the universe.
(Also, by the way, this proves that it wasnt those QWP plates that were causing the photons to change from
waves to particles, and to alter the impact points on the detector. We now get an interference pattern even



with the QWPs in place. Its our knowledge alone that the photons or electrons seem concerned about. This
alone influences their actions.)
Okay, this is bizarre. Yet these results happen every time, without fail. Theyre telling us that an observer
determines physical behavior of external objects. Could it get any weirder? Hold on: Now well try something
even more radical an experiment only first performed in 2002. Thus far the experiment involved erasing the
which-way information by meddling with the path of p and then measuring its twin s. Perhaps some sort of
communication takes place between photon p and s, letting s know what we will learn, and therefore giving it
the green light to be a particle or a wave and either create or not create an interference pattern. Maybe when
photon p meets the polarizer it sends s an IM (instant message) at infinite speed, so that photon s knows it
must materialize into a real entity instantly, which has to be a particle since only particles can go through one
slit or the other and not both. Result: No interference pattern.
To check out whether this is so, well do one more thing. First well stretch out the distance p photons have to
take until they reach their detector, so itll take them more time to get there. This way, photons taking the S
route will hit their own detectors first. But oddly enough, the results do not change! When we insert the
QWPs to path S the fringes are gone; and when we insert the polarizing scrambler to path P and lose the
coincidence-measuring ability that lets us determine which-way info for the S photons, the fringes return as
before. But how can this be? Photons taking the S-path already finished their journeys. They either went
through one or the other slit, or both. They either collapsed their wave function and became a particle or
they didnt. The games over, the actions finished. Theyve each already hit the final barrier and were
detected before twin p encountered the polarizing scrambling device that would rob us of which-way
The photons somehow know whether or not we will gain the which-way information in the future. They decide not
to collapse into particles before their distant twins even encounter our scrambler. (If we take away the P
scrambler, the S photons suddenly revert to being particles, again before Ps photons reach their detector and
activate the coincidence counter.) Somehow, photon s knows whether the which-way marker will be erased
even though neither it, nor its twin, have yet encountered an erasing mechanism. It knows when its
interference behavior can be present, when it can safely remain in its fuzzy both-slits ghost reality, because it
apparently knows photon p far off in the distance is going to eventually hit the scrambler, and that this will
ultimately prevent us from learning which way p went.
It doesnt matter how we set up the experiment. Our mind and its knowledge or lack of it is the only thing that
determines how these bits of light or matter behave. It forces us, too, to wonder about space and time. Can
either be real if the twins act on information before it happens, and across distances instantaneously as if
there is no separation between them?
Again and again, observations have consistently confirmed the observer-dependent effects of QT. In the past
decade, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology have carried out an experiment that,
in the quantum world, is equivalent to demonstrating that a watched pot doesnt boil. It seems, said Peter
Coveney, a researcher there, that the act of looking at an atom prevents it from changing. (Theoretically, if a
nuclear bomb were watched intently enough, it would not explode, that is, if you could keep checking its
atoms every million trillionth of a second. This is yet another experiment that supports the theory that the
structure of the physical world, and of small units of matter and energy in particular, are influenced by human
In the last couple of decades, quantum theorists have shown, in principle, that an atom cannot change its
energy state as long as it is being continuously observed. So, now, to test this concept, the group of laser
experimentalists at the NIST held a cluster of positively charged beryllium ions, the water so to speak, in a
fixed position using a magnetic field, the kettle. They applied heat to the kettle in the form of a radiofrequency field that would boost the atoms from a lower to a higher energy state. This transition generally
takes about a quarter of a second. However, when the researchers kept checking the atoms every four


milliseconds with a brief pulse of light from a laser, the atoms never made it to the higher energy state,
despite the force driving them toward it. It would seem that the process of measurement gives the atoms a
little nudge, forcing them back down to the lower energy statein effect, resetting the system to zero. This
behavior has no analog in the classical world of everyday sense awareness and is apparently a function of
Arcane? Bizarre? Its hard to believe such effects are real. Its a fantastic result. When quantum physics was in
its early days of discovery in the beginning of the last century, even some physicists dismissed the
experimental findings as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall Albert Einsteins reaction to the
experiments: I know this business is free of contradictions, yet in my view it contains a certain
It was only with the advent of quantum physics and the fall of objectivity, that scientists began to consider
again the old question of the possibility of comprehending the world as a form of mind. Einstein, on a walk
from The Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton to his home on Mercer street, illustrated his continued
fascination and skepticism about an objective external reality, when he asked Abraham Pais if he really
believed that the moon existed only if he looked at it. Since that time, physicists have analyzed and revised
their equations in a vain attempt to arrive at a statement of natural laws that in no way depends on the
circumstances of the observer. Indeed, Eugene Wigner, one of the 20th centurys greatest physicists, stated
that it is not possible to formulate the laws of [physics] in a fully consistent way without reference to the
consciousness [of the observer]. So when quantum theory implies that consciousness must exist, it tacitly
shows that the content of the mind is the ultimate reality, and that only an act of observation can confer
shape and form to reality from a dandelion in a meadow, to sun, wind and rain.




By Robert Lanza
The Universe in Your Head: Stem cell pioneer Robert Lanza generates controversy on a whole
different plane with Biocentrism, a book that lays out his theory of everything.
MSNBC.com featured Dr. Robert Lanzas book (co-authored with leading astronomer Bob Berman)
Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe on its
National Academies award-winning site Cosmic Log. The article by Science Editor Alan Boyle includes an
exclusive online abridgment of the book based on Lanzas essay A New Theory of the Universe which appeared
in The American Scholar, a leading intellectual journal which has previously published works by Albert Einstein,
Margaret Mead, and Carl Sagan, among others. According to Nielsen Online, msnbc.com is the number one
Current Events and Global News site with more than 40 million unique visitors a month.
Biomedical researcher Robert Lanza has been on the frontier of cloning and stem cell studies for more than a
decade, so hes well-acclimated to controversy, writes Alan Boyle, MSNBC.coms Science Editor. But his book
Biocentrism is generating controversy on a different plane by arguing that our consciousness plays a central
role in creating the cosmos. By treating space and time as physical things, science picks a completely wrong
starting point for understanding the world, Lanza declares. Any claim that space and time arent cold, hard,
physical things has to raise an eyebrow. Other physicists point out that Lanzas view is fully in line with the
perspective from quantum mechanics that the observer plays a huge role in how reality is observed. So what
Lanza says in this book is not new, Richard Conn Henry, a physics and astronomy professor at Johns Hopkins
University, said in a book review. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the
physicists, do not say it or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private furiously blushing as we mouth
the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no! Does all this make a difference in daily life, or how you see
the world? Take a look at the free sample of Biocentrism.
Link to exclusive online abridgement Biocentrism How life creates the universe: Authors say cosmology
misses the big picture unless it includes biology:
Authors say cosmology misses the big picture unless it includes biology

BenBella Books



"Biocentrism," by Robert Lanza with Bob Berman, lays out the concept that life and consciousness make the
cosmos what it is.
By Robert Lanzawith Bob Berman
Special to msnbc.com
updated 6/16/2009 5:40:40 PM ET


This abridgment is based on "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the
Universe," by Robert Lanza with Bob Berman, published by BenBella Books.
The 21st century is predicted to be the Century of Biology, a shift from the previous century dominated by physics. It seems
fitting, then, to begin the century by turning the universe outside-in and unifying the foundations of science, not with
imaginary strings that occupy equally imaginary unseen dimensions, but with a much simpler idea that is rife with so many
shocking new perspectives that we are unlikely ever to see reality the same way again.
In the past few decades, major puzzles of mainstream science have forced a re-evaluation of the nature of the universe that
goes far beyond anything we could have imagined. A more accurate understanding of the world requires that we consider it
biologically centered. Its a simple but amazing concept that Biocentrism attempts to clarify: Life creates the universe,
instead of the other way around. Understanding this more fully yields answers to several long-held puzzles. This new model
combining physics and biology instead of keeping them separate, and putting observers firmly into the equation is
called biocentrism. Its necessity is driven in part by the ongoing attempts to create an overarching view, a theory of
everything. Such efforts have now stretched for decades, without much success except as a way of financially facilitating the
careers of theoreticians and graduate students.
Could the long-sought Theory of Everything be merely missing a component that was too close for us to have noticed? Some
of the thrill that came with the announcement that the human genome had been mapped or the idea that we are close to
understanding the Big Bang rests in our innate human desire for completeness and totality. But most of these
comprehensive theories fail to take into account one crucial factor: We are creating them. It is the biological creature that
fashions the stories, that makes the observations, and that gives names to things. And therein lies the great expanse of our
oversight, that science has not confronted the one thing that is at once most familiar and most mysterious consciousness.
As Emerson wrote in Experience, an essay that confronted the facile positivism of his age: We have learned that we do not
see directly, but mediately, and that we have no means of correcting these colored and distorting lenses which we are, or of
computing the amount of their errors. Perhaps these subject-lenses have a creative power; perhaps there are no objects.

Muddy universe
For several centuries, starting roughly with the Renaissance, a single mindset about the construct of the
cosmos has dominated scientific thought. This model has brought us untold insights into the nature of the
universe, and countless applications that have transformed every aspect of our lives. But this model failing
us now in a myriad of ways may be reaching the end of its useful life.
The old model proposes that the universe was until rather recently a lifeless collection of particles bouncing
against each other, and obeying predetermined rules that were mysterious in their origin. The universe is
presented as a watch that somehow wound itself and that, allowing for a degree of quantum randomness, will
unwind in a semi-predictable way.
There are many problems with the current paradigm some obvious, others rarely mentioned but just as
fundamental. But the overarching problem involves life, since its initial arising is still a scientifically unknown
process, even if the way it then changed forms can be apprehended using Darwinian mechanisms. The bigger
problem is that life contains consciousness, which, to say the least, is poorly understood.
Consciousness is not just an issue for biologists; its a problem for physics. There is nothing in modern physics
that explains how a group of molecules in a brain creates consciousness. The beauty of a sunset, the taste of a
delicious meal, these are all mysteries to science which can sometimes pin down where in the brain the
sensations arise, but not how and why there is any subjective personal experience to begin with. And, whats
worse, nothing in science can explain how consciousness arose from matter. Our understanding of this most
basic phenomenon is virtually nil. Interestingly, most models of physics do not even recognize this as a



But even putting aside the life-and-consciousness issues, the current model leaves much to be desired when it
comes to explaining the fundamentals of our universe. The cosmos sprang out of nothingness 13.7 billion
years ago, in a titanic event facetiously labeled the Big Bang. We dont begin to understand where the big
bang came from even if we continually tinker with the details. Indeed, every theorist realizes in his bones that
you can never get something from nothing, and that the Big Bang is no explanation at all for the origins of
everything, but merely, at best, the partial description of a single event in a continuum that is probably
Its one thing to acknowledge that theoretical physicists are brilliant people even if they do tend to drip food
on themselves at buffets. But at some point, virtually everyone has thought, or at least felt: This really doesnt
work. This doesnt explain anything fundamental, not really.

A scientific swamp
Then, too, in the last few decades there has been considerable discussion of a basic paradox in the
construction of the universe. Why are the laws of physics exactly balanced for animal life to exist? There are
over 200 physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that it strains credulity to propose
that they are random even if that is exactly what standard contemporary physics baldly suggests. These
fundamental constants of the universe constants that are not predicted by any theory all seem to be
carefully chosen, often with great precision, to allow for existence of life and consciousness (yes,
consciousness raises its annoying head yet another time). We have absolutely no reasonable explanation for
When it comes right down to it, todays science is amazingly good at figuring out how the parts work. What
eludes us is the big picture. We provide interim answers, we create exquisite new technologies from our everexpanding knowledge of physical processes. We do badly in just one area, which unfortunately encompasses
all the bottom-line issues: What is the nature of this thing we call reality, the universe as a whole?
Any honest metaphorical summary of the current state of explaining the cosmos as a whole is: a swamp. And
this particular Everglade is one where the alligators of common sense must be evaded at every turn.
Some scientists insist that a Theory of Everything is just around the corner, and then well essentially know it
all. Any day now. It hasnt happened, and it may not happen until we better understand a critical component
of the cosmos a component that has been shunted it out of the way because science doesnt know what to
do with it. This, consciousness, is not a small item. It is not like anything else. Indeed, it is nothing like anything
else. Consciousness is awareness, or perception, which in an utter mystery has somehow arisen from
molecules and goo. How did inert, random bits of carbon ever morph into that Japanese guy who always wins
the hot dog eating contest?
In short, the attempt to explain the nature of the universe, its origins, its parameters, and what is really going
on, requires an understanding of how the observer our presence plays a role. At first this may seem
impossibly difficult, since much of awareness or consciousness and certainly its origins are still mysterious. But
as we shall see, we can use what we know, and what we are increasingly discovering, to formulate models of
the cosmos that make sense of things for the first time.

The disappearing kitchen

Undeniably it is the biological creature that makes the observations and creates the theories. Our
entire education system in all disciplines, the construction of our language, revolve around a bottomline mindset that assumes a separate universe out there into which we have each individually
arrived on a very temporary basis. It is further assumed that we accurately perceive this external preexisting reality and play little or no role in its appearance.
However, starting in the 1920s, the results of experiments have shown just the opposite. The
observer critically influences the outcome. An electron turns out to be both a particle and a wave but



how and, more importantly, where such a particle will be located remains dependent upon the very
act of observation. This is perhaps most vivid in the famous two-hole experiment, which has been
performed so many times, with so many variations, its conclusively proven that if one watches a
subatomic particle or a bit of light pass through slits on a barrier, it behaves like a particle and creates
solid-looking hits behind the individual slits on the final barrier that measures the impacts. Like a tiny
bullet, it logically passes through one or the other hole. But if the scientists do not observe the
trajectory of the particle, then it exhibits the behavior of waves that allow it pass through both holes
at the same time.
Since then, the list of paradoxes and intractable problems has continued to grow, starting with those
accompanying the Big Bang (for instance, how could the entire universe indeed, the laws of nature
themselves pop out of nothingness?) to experiments during the past decade that show separate
particles can influence each other instantaneously over great distances as if theyre endowed with
a kind of ESP. It works with light, too: When born-together pairs of photons are created in a special
kind of crystal, observing one member instantly influences the behavior the other even if they are
separated by enormous distances. They are intimately linked in a manner suggesting theres no space
between them, and no time influencing their behavior.
These and similar experiments have befuddled scientists for decades. Some of the greatest physicists
have described them as impossible to intuit. How can quantum physics be so impervious to
metaphor, visualization, and language? Amazingly, if we accept a life-created reality at face value, it
all becomes simple and straightforward to understand.
Take the seemingly undeniable logic that your kitchen is always present, its contents assuming all
their familiar shapes and colors whether or not you are in it. But consider: The shapes, colors, and
forms known as your kitchen are seen as they are solely because photons of light from the overhead
bulb bounce off the various objects and then interact with your brain through a complex set of
retinal and neural intermediaries. But on its own, light doesnt have any color, nor any brightness, nor
any visual characteristics at all. Its merely an electrical and magnetic phenomenon. So while you may
think that the kitchen as you remember it was there in your absence, the unquestionable reality is
that nothing remotely resembling what you can imagine could be present when a consciousness is
not interacting.
Quantum physics comes to a similar conclusion. At night you click off the lights and leave for the
bedroom. Of course the kitchen is there, unseen, all through the night. Right? But, in fact, the
refrigerator, stove and everything else are composed of a shimmering swarm of matter/energy. The
results of quantum physics, such as the two-slit experiment, tell us that not a single one of those
subatomic particles actually occupies a definite place. Rather, they exist as a range of possibilities
as waves of probability as the German physicist Max Born demonstrated back in 1926. They are
statistical predictions nothing but a likely outcome. In fact, outside of that idea, nothing is there! If
they are not being observed, they cannot be thought of as having any real existence either
duration or a position in space. It is only in the presence of an observer that is, when you go back
in to get a drink of water that the mind sets the scaffolding of these particles in place. Until it
actually lays down the threads (somewhere in the haze of probabilities that represent the objects
range of possible values) they cannot be thought of as being either here or there, or having an actual
position, a physical reality.



Indeed, it is here that biocentrism suggests a very different view of reality. Most people, in and out of
the sciences, imagine the external world to exist on its own, with an appearance that more-or-less
resembles what we ourselves see. Human or animal eyes, according to this view, are merely clear
windows that accurately let in the world. If our personal window ceases to exist, as in death, or is
painted black and opaque, as in blindness, that doesnt in any way alter the continued existence of
the external reality or its supposed actual appearance. A tree is still there, the moon still shines,
whether or not we are cognizing them. They have an independent existence. True, a dog may see an
autumn maple solely in shades of gray, and an eagle may perceive much greater detail among its
leaves, but most creatures basically apprehend the same visually real object, which persists even
if no eyes were upon it.
This Is it really there? issue is ancient, and of course predates biocentrism. Biocentrism,
however, explainswhy one view and not the other may be correct. The converse is equally true: Once
one fully understands that there is no independent external universe outside of biological existence,
the rest more or less falls into place.
Where is the universe?
And exactly where is that fridge? Where is the universe even located? Start with everything that is
currently being perceived the page you are looking at, for example. Language and custom say that
it all lies outside us in the external world. Yet weve already seen that nothing can be perceived that
is not already interacting with our consciousness. Since the perceived images are experientially real
and not imaginary, it must be physically happening in some location. Human physiology texts answer
this without ambiguity. Although the eye and retina gather photons that deliver their payloads of bits
of the electromagnetic force, these are channeled through heavy-duty cables straight back until
the actual perception of images themselves physically occur in the back of the brain, augmented by other
nearby locations, in special sections that are as vast and labyrinthine as the hallways of the Milky
Way. This, according to human physiology texts, is where the actual colors, shapes, and movement
happen. This is where they are perceived or cognized.
If you try to consciously access that luminous, energy-filled, visual part of the brain, its easy. Youre
already effortlessly perceiving it with every glance you take. Custom says that what we see is out
there, outside ourselves, and such a viewpoint is fine and necessary in terms of language and utility,
as in please pass the butter thats over there. But make no mistake: The butter itself exists only
within the mind. It is the only place visual (and tactile and olfactory) images are perceived and hence
located. Explained in the language of biology, the brain turns impulses from our senses into an order
and a sequence. As photons of light bounce off the butter, various combinations of wavelengths
enter our eye and deliver the force to trillions of atoms arranged into an exquisite design of cells that
rapidly fire in permutations too vast for any computer to calculate. Then, in the brain, this
information, which as we previously saw has no color by itself, appears as a yellow block of butter.
Even its smell and texture are experienced in the mind alone. The butter is not out there except
by the convention of language. The same is true for all perceived objects, including the brain, cells,
and even the electromagnetic events we detect with our instruments.
Some may imagine that there are two worlds, one out there and a separate one inside the skull.
But the two worlds model is a myth. As we have seen, only one visual reality is extant; it is the one
that requires consciousness in order to manifest. As Nobel physicist John Wheeler once said, No
phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.



A major handicap in adopting this new viewpoint is that language was created to work exclusively
through symbolism, and to divide nature into parts and actions. Even if well acquainted with the
limitations and vagaries of language, we must be especially on guard against dismissing biocentrism
too quickly if it doesnt at first glance seem compatible with customary verbal constructions. The
challenge here, alas, is to peer not just behind habitual ways of thinking, but to go beyond some of
the tools of the thinking process itself, to grasp the universe in a way that is at the same time simpler
and more demanding than what we are accustomed to.
Gone for keeps
Quantum mechanics describes the tiny world of the atom and its constituents, and their behavior,
with stunning if probabilistic accuracy. But quantum mechanics in many ways threatens our absolute
notions of space and time. When studying subatomic particles, the observer appears to alter and
determine what is perceived. The presence and methodology of the experimenter is hopelessly
entangled with whatever he is attempting to observe, and what results he gets.
In 1964, Irish physicist John Bell proposed an experiment that could show if separate particles can
influence each other instantaneously over great distances. First it is necessary to create two bits of
matter or light that share the same wave function using a special kind of crystal (so-called
entangled particles). Now, since quantum theory tells us that everything in nature has a particle
nature and a wave nature, and that the objects behavior exists only as probabilities, no small object
actually assumes a particular place or motion until its wave function collapses. What accomplishes
this collapse? Messing with it in any way. Hitting it with a bit of light in order to take its picture
would instantly do the job. But it became increasingly clear that any possible way the experimenter
could take a look at the object would collapse the wave function. As more sophisticated
experiments were devised it became obvious that mere knowledge in the experimenters mind is
sufficient to cause the wave function to collapse.
That was freaky, but it got worse. If the wave function of an entangled particle collapses, so will the
others even if they are separated by the width of the universe. This means that if one particle is
observed to have an up spin the act of observation causes the other to instantly go from being a
mere probability wave to an actual particle with the opposite spin. They are intimately linked, and in
a way that acts as if theres no space between them, and no time influencing their behavior.
Experiments from 1997 to 2007 have shown that this is indeed the case, as if tiny objects created
together are endowed with a kind of ESP. They truly seem to prove that Einsteins insistence on
locality meaning that nothing can influence anything else at superluminal speeds is wrong.
Rather, the entities we observe are floating in a field a field of mind, biocentrism maintains that
is not limited by the external spacetime Einstein theorized a century ago.
No one should imagine that when biocentrism points to quantum theory as one major area of
support, it is just a single aspect of quantum phenomena. Bells Theorem of 1964, shown
experimentally to be true over and over in the intervening years, does more than merely demolish all
vestiges of Einsteins hopes that locality can be maintained.
Before Bell, it was still considered possible (though increasingly iffy) that local realism an objective
independent universe could be the truth. Before Bell, many still clung to the millennia-old
assumption that physical states exist before they are measured. Before Bell, it was still widely
believed that particles have definite attributes and values independent of the act of measuring. And,
finally, thanks to Einsteins demonstrations that no information can travel faster than light, it was



assumed that if observers are sufficiently far apart, a measurement by one has no effect on the
measurement by the other.
All of the above are now finished for keeps.
As we saw earlier, the profound influence of the observer is also clear in the famous two-hole
experiment, which in turn goes straight to the core of quantum physics. If one watches a subatomic
particle or a bit of light pass through slits on a barrier, it behaves like a particle and logically passes
through one or the other hole. But if the scientists do not observe the trajectory of the particle, then
it exhibits the behavior of waves that retain the right to exhibit all possibilities, including going
through both holes at the same time and then creating the kind of rippling pattern that only waves
These waves of probability are not waves of material, but rather statistical predictions. Outside of
that idea, the wave is not there. From the beginning, Copenhagen adherents realized that nothing is
real unless its perceived. This makes perfect sense if biocentrism is reality; otherwise its a total
At present, the implications of these experiments are conveniently downplayed in the public mind
because, until recently, quantum behavior was limited to the microscopic world. However, this has
no basis in reason, and more importantly, it is starting to be challenged in laboratories around the
world. New experiments carried out with huge molecules called Buckyballs show that quantum
reality extends into the macroscopic world we live in. In 2005, KHC03 crystals exhibited quantum
entanglement ridges a half-inch high visible signs of behavior nudging into everyday levels of
discernment.An exciting new experiment has just been proposed (so-called scaled-up
superposition) that would take this even further.
Goldilocks universe
The world appears to be designed for life, not just at the microscope scale of the atom, but at the
level of the universe itself. Scientists have discovered that the universe has a long list of traits that
make it appear as if everything it contains from atoms to stars was tailor-made just for us. If the
Big Bang had been one part in a million more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for the
galaxies and life to develop. Result: no us. If the strong nuclear force were decreased two percent,
atomic nuclei wouldnt hold together, and plain-vanilla hydrogen would be the only kind of atom in
the universe. If the gravitational force were decreased by a hair, stars including the sun would
not ignite. In fact, all of the universe's forces and constants are just perfectly set up for atomic
interactions, the existence of atoms and elements, planets, liquid water and life. Tweak any of them
and you never existed. Many are calling this revelation the Goldilocks Principle, because the
cosmos is not too this or too that, but rather just right for life.
At the moment, there are only four explanations for this mystery. One is to argue for incredible
coincidence. Another is to say, "God did that," which explains nothing even if it is true. The third is to
invoke the anthropic principles reasoning that we must find these conditions if we are alive,
because, what else could we find? The final option is biocentrism pure and simple, which explains
how the universe is created by life. Obviously, no universe that doesnt allow for life could possibly
exist; the universe and its parameters simply reflect the spatio-temporal logic of animal existence.
No matter which logic one adopts, one has to come to terms with the fact that we are living in a very
peculiar cosmos. Biocentrism fits very neatly into the late physicist John Wheelers participatory
universe belief in which observers are required to bring the universe into existence. In short, you


either have an astonishingly improbable coincidence revolving around the fact that the cosmos could
have any properties but happens to have exactly the right ones for life, or else you have exactly what
must be seen if indeed the cosmos is biocentric.
No time to lose
Since quantum theory increasingly casts doubts about the existence of time as we know it, lets head
straight into this surprisingly ancient scientific issue. As irrelevant as it might first appear, the
presence or absence of time is an important factor in any fundamental look into the nature of the
The reality of time has long been questioned by an odd alliance of philosophers and physicists. The
former argue that the past exists only as ideas in the mind, which themselves are solely
neuroelectrical events occurring strictly in the present moment. Physicists, for their part, find that all
working models from Newtons laws through quantum mechanics have no need for time. When
people speak of time, theyre usually referring to change. But change is not the same thing as time.
To measure anythings position precisely, at any given instant, is to lock-in on one static frame of
its motion, as in a film. Conversely, as soon as you observe movement or momentum you cant
isolate a frame because momentum is the summation of many frames. Sharpness in one
parameter induces blurriness in the other. To understand this, consider for a moment that you are
watching a film of an archery tournament. An archer shoots and the arrow flies. The camera follows
the arrows trajectory from the archers bow toward the target. Suddenly the projector stops on a
single frame of a stilled arrow. You stare at the image of an arrow in mid-flight, something you
obviously could not do at a real tournament. The pause in the film enables you to know the position
of the arrow with great accuracy its just beyond the grandstand, 20 feet above the ground. But
you have lost all information about its momentum. It is going nowhere; its velocity is zero. Its path,
its trajectory, is no longer known. It is uncertain.
It soon becomes apparent that such uncertainty is actually built into the fabric of reality. This makes
perfect sense from a biocentric perspective: Time is the animal sense that animates events the still
frames of the spatial world. Everything you perceive even this page is actively and
repeatedly being reconstructed inside your head in an organized whirl of information. Time can be
defined as the summation of spatial states; the same thing measured with our scientific instruments
is called momentum. The weaving together of these frames occurs in the mind. So whats real? We
confront a here-and-now. If the next image is different from the last, then it is different, period.
We can award that change with the word time but that doesnt mean theres an actual invisible
entity that forms a matrix or grid in which changes occur. Thats just our own way of making sense of
things, our tool of perception. We watch our loved ones age and die, and assume an external entity
called time is responsible for the crime.
The demotion of time from an actual reality to a mere subjective experience, a social convention, is
evidence against the external universe mindset, because the latter requires a space and time
gridwork. In biocentrism, space and time are forms of animal understanding period. They are
tools of the mind, and thus do not exist as external objects independent of life.
When we feel poignantly that time has elapsed, as when loved ones die, it constitutes the human
perceptions of the passage and existence of time. Our babies turn into adults. We age. They age. We
all grow old together. That to us is time. It belongs with us.



There is a peculiar intangibility about space, as well. We cannot pick it up and bring it the laboratory.
This is because, like time, space is neither physical nor fundamentally real. It is a mode of
interpretation and understanding part of an animals mental software that molds sensations
into multidimensional objects.
In modern everyday life, however, weve come to regard space as sort of a vast container that has no
walls. In it, we cognize separate objects that were first learned and identified. These patterns are
blocked out by the thinking mind within boundaries of color, shape or utility. Human language and
ideation alone decide where the boundaries of one object end and another begins.
Multiple illusions and processes routinely impart a false view of space. Shall we count the ways?
1. Empty space is in fact not empty.
2. Distances between objects can and do mutate depending on a multitude of conditions like gravity
and speed, so that no bedrock distance exists anywhere, between anything and anything else.
3. Quantum theory casts serious doubt about whether even distant individual items are truly
separated at all, and
4. We see separations between objects only because we have been conditioned and trained,
through language and convention, to draw boundaries.
Now, space and time illusions are certainly harmless. A problem only arises because, by treating
space as something physical, existing in itself, science imparts a completely wrong starting point for
investigations into the nature of reality. In reality there can be no break between the observer and
the observed. If the two are split, the reality is gone. Space, like time, is not an object or a thing.
Space and time are forms of our animal sense perception. We carry them around with us like turtles
with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur
independent of life.
Where do we go from here?
Biocentrism offers a springboard to make sense of aspects of biological and physical science which
are currently insensible. Natural areas of biocentric research include the realm of brain-architecture,
neuroscience, and the nature of consciousness itself. Another is the ongoing research into artificial
intelligence. Though still in its infancy, few doubt that this century, in which computer power and
capabilities keep expanding geometrically, will eventually bring researchers to confront the problem
in a serious way. A thinking device will need the same kind of algorithms for employing time and
developing a sense of space that we enjoy.
Finally, one must consider the endless ongoing attempts at creating grand unified theories.
Currently such efforts in physics have typically stretched for decades without much success.
Incorporating the living universe and allowing the observer into the equation as the late John
Wheeler insists is necessary will at minimum produce a fascinating amalgam of the living and nonliving in a way that should make everything work better. It should provide stronger bases for solving
some of the problems associated with quantum physics and the Big Bang. Accepting space and time
as forms of animal sense perception (as biologic), rather than as external physical objects, offers a
new way of understanding everything from the microworld (for instance, the reason for Heisenbergs
uncertainty principle and the two-hole experiment) to the forces, constants, and laws that shape the



Bruce Rolff / FeaturePics.com

Our consciousness plays a key role in how we perceive space andtime, biomedical researcher Robert Lanza says in "Biocentrism."

Biomedical researcher Robert Lanza has been on the frontier of cloning and stem cell studies for more
than a decade, so he's well-acclimated to controversy. But his book "Biocentrism" is generating
controversy on a different plane by arguing that our consciousness plays a central role in creating the
"By treating space and time as physical things, science picks a completely wrong starting point for
understanding the world," Lanza declares.
Any claim that space and time aren't cold, hard, physical things has to raise an eyebrow. Some of the reactions
to Lanza's ideas, first set forth two years ago in an essay for The American Scholar, brand them as "pseudoscientific philosophical claptrap" or "no better than any religion."
Lanza admits that the reviews haven't all been glowing, particularly among some physicists. "Their response
has been much how you'd expect priests to respond to stem cell research," he told me Monday.
Other physicists, however, point out that Lanza's view is fully in line with the perspective from quantum
mechanics that the observer plays a huge role in how reality is observed.
"So what Lanza says in this book is not new," Richard Conn Henry, a physics and astronomy professor at Johns
Hopkins University, said in a book review. "Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the
physicists, do not say it - or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private - furiously blushing as we mouth
the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!"
The weird twists in our view of the cosmos are hinted at in the scientific speculation over quantum
teleportation, experiments in reverse-time causation, the idea that time has no independent existence, and
physicist Stephen Hawkings' suggestion that the universe as we know it is generated through quantum
interference involving all possible universes.
Lanza and his co-author, astronomer/columnist Bob Berman, try to assemble all those weird little twists into a
larger theory. Rather than laying out the big picture here, I'll let them do it in an exclusive online abridgment:



The authors contend that their view of the cosmos can help resolve all the head-scratching over unifying the
fundamental forces, or coming up with a "theory of everything" that covers the submicroscopic world of
quantum effects as well as the grand workings of gravity.
There are potential pitfalls, of course. If you merely accept that reality works the way it does because that's
how our senses and neurons are structured to perceive it, you could run the risk of shrugging off the search
for deeper, truer descriptions of that reality.
One route would be to write off the still-mysterious aspects of our universe (e.g., what dark energy is, or how
consciousness arises) as an expression of the anthropic principle. In effect, you're saying, "It's that way just
because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to observe it." Another route would be embracing intelligent design
("God did it").
Neither of those routes can be navigated very well using the scientific method, and Lanza and Berman point
that out in their book. However, they don't lay out a detailed road map showing how a "biocentric" view of
the universe might affect the course of science - other than to say that neuroscience needs more attention
and string theory needs less.
Theoretically, one avenue might be to study how our brain organizes the incoming electrical impulses to
create the matrix beyond - and tweak that circuitry in different ways. "With a little genetic engineering, you
could probably make anything that's red move, or make a noise instead, or even make you feel hungry or want
to have sex," Lanza said.
Lanza acknowledges that the step-by-step, objective approach to solving scientific puzzlers is still the way to
go when you're focusing on a specific research project, such as turning the medical promise of embryonic stem
cells into reality. He knows he's not making all this up.
"Day to day, yes, I can put x number of ml [milliliters] in a Petri dish, and I can predict exactly what the
behavior is going to be," he told me.
But Lanza said quantum effects as basic as the two-slit experiment tell us that there's more to life, the universe
and everything than milliliters of solution in a dish. "We have this way that we think of space and time on the
street. It's day to day, paying your bills," Lanza said. "But when you look at these experiments, that's not what
they're telling us. In fact, they're telling us quite the reverse."
Does all this make a difference in daily life, or how you see the world? Take a look at the free sample of
"Biocentrism," and feel free to weigh in with your comments below. And if you're looking for more mindblowing speculation, check out these archived Cosmic Log items:
Paul Davies: The self-made universe
Frank Wilczek: The grid we live in
Lanza on the "new theory of the universe"
Lanza on evolution's future shock
Six mind-blowing ideas

Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to
be friendly, ask me about my upcoming book, "The Case for Pluto."

Explore related topics: science

More from NBCNews.com

'Unparticle' may lurk in Earth's mantle

Kate Gosselin slams Kendra Wilkinson on 'Wife Swap'
Mysterious 'gigantic jet' lightning spotted over China



Out-of-control spaceship? Nope: It's asteroid 2012 DA14, seen on radar
Howard Stern finds Clive Davis' comments on Kelly Clarkson 'sickening'
Millionaire Dennis Tito plans to send woman and man to Mars and back
From around the web

Earthshaking Information About Mars To Come From NASA In A Few Weeks (redOrbit)
Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg? (Mother Nature Network)
EU to investigate Chinese solar-panel glass (Financial Times)
Here's What Futurist Ray Kurzweil Thinks Life Will Be Like In The Next 20 Years (PRESIDENT&CEO)
Immortality and Lifes Purpose (Random Rationality)
BAE Systems 155-mm Long Range Land Attack Projectile Aces Live Fire Tests (dlvr.it)

About Biocentrism
Book Biocentrism




How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe
Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work.
Nobel Prize Winner E. Donnall Thomas,referring to Lanzas A New Theory of the Universe

The Biocentric Universe Theory



The Biocentric Universe Theory: Stem-cell guru Robert Lanza presents a radical new view of the universe and everything in it.

Discover Magazine

A New Theory of the Universe

A New Theory of the Universe: Biocentrism builds on quantum physics by adding life to the equation.

The American Scholar

Will Biology Solve the Universe?

A new theory asserts that biology, not physics, will be the key to unlocking the deepest mysteries of the universe.


Theory of every-living-thing



The quest to unify all of physics into a the theory of everything has inspired a host of ideas. Now a pioneer in the field of stem cell research has weighed in with an
essay that brings biology and consciousness into the mix.

MSNBC.com Cosmic Log

Biocentrism Featured in The Scientist

How biology is central to constructing a more complete and unified theory of the Universe

The Scientist






An infrared view from the Cassini orbiter reveals the Saturnianmoon Titan's surface.
Could Titan harbor life as we don't know it?

Is "life as we don't know it" closer than we think? Are microbes behind the world's biggest extinctions? Is most
of our morality bound up in hidden "dark morals"? Blow your mind with six flights of scientific fancy from
the Origins Symposium, presented by Arizona State University.
The weekend forum, organized to inaugurate ASU's Origins Initiative, focused on the beginnings of life, the
universe and everything - including consciousness and culture. Among the luminaries in attendance were
biologist Richard Dawkins, neuroscientist Steven Pinker, anthropologist Donald Johanson and a basketball
team's worth of Nobel laureates. (On Saturday I almost got lost as I wandered around The Boulders resort with
two of the nicest Nobelists you ever did meet, Frank Wilczek and John Mather.)
Physicist Stephen Hawking sent his regrets, due to a chest infection that put him in the hospital in California but he also sent an audiovisual presentation that will be played at tonight's conference-closer. (Hawking went
through a similar medical episode more than three years ago.)
Some of the weekend's presentations delved into the science world's best-known unknowns: What will we
find at the Large Hadron Collider? What's the nature of dark energy and dark matter? How
doesconsciousness arise? The experts also discussed some lesser-known unknowns that were no less intriguing.
During the conference sessions, I sent out enough Twitter tweets to confound a canary, but for those who
weren't able to follow along in real time, here are six of my favorite mind-blowers:

Weird life under our nose?

Paul Davies, a physicist and astrobiologist based at ASU, says we've been so busy looking for life as we know it
that we may be missing out on life as we don't know it. That's what he calls "weird life."Organisms that rely on
metabolic processes other than the usual DNA-plus-protein routine may be dwelling "under our noses, or
even in our noses," Davies says.
But it's more likely that weird life would be found in conditions that are inimical to life as we know it, living
in isolated pockets of Earth's biosphere. Weird life could conceivably lurk far beneath Earth's surface, feeding
off the energy and chemicals available deep below. Some of the chemicals essential for weird life may even be
poisonous to our kind of life. For example, arsenic could play the role that phosphorus plays in our own


What about silicon-based life? We probably wouldn't see that on Earth, but we could conceivably see it on
Titan, one of Saturn's moons. That's according to Peter Ward, a biologist and paleontologist at the University
of Washington. Titan's environment could allow for the existence of long-chain, silicon-based molecules
known as silanes, analogous to carbon-based molecules on Earth. Might there be silicon-based life on Titan?
Oh, if only Arthur C. Clarke were still alive!

Did the moon make us possible?

The current mainstream scientific view is that the moon came into existence 4.6 billion years ago as the result
of a cosmic collision between Earth and a Mars-size planet gone wild (which is known in the literature
as Theia). What impact did that catastrophe have on Earth's development?
Computer simulations show that the moon's presence has slowed down Earth's rotation rate from a little
more than five hours per day to today's 24 hours, and the gradual slowdown is continuing. The moon also helps
stabilize the tilt of Earth's axis, moderating what otherwise would be wild swings between summer and
winter, Caltech planetary scientist David Stevenson notes.
Did the moon make Earth more hospitable for life? Stevenson says life probably would have developed in any
case, but the moon's effects certainly have made things more pleasant for organisms like us. Another
intriguing fact is that the apparent size of the moon and the sun are nearly identical as seen from Earth - and
that may have helped spark our distant ancestors' interest in astronomy. Cue the "2001" music again, folks.

Life interrupted on Mars?

What about life on the Red Planet? There's ample evidence that liquid water flowed, trickled and pooled up on
Mars billions of years ago, but scientists are still debating whether that would have been enough to allow for
the development of life.
ASU planetary scientist Phil Christensen, who has been playing key roles on NASA's Mars Odyssey mission as
well as the Mars rover missions, says the geological effects seen to date could have been created by liquid
water over a time span of hundreds or thousands of years rather than millions of years. He theorizes
that cosmic impacts could have sporadically melted huge volumes of ice in the Martian crust, creating flash
floods and temporarily thickening up the planet's atmosphere.
Is it possible for life to develop from primordial soup in just 100 or 1,000 years? That's the big question that
Christensen would like the astrobiologists to answer. In the meantime, he's thinking of ways for future Mars
probes to nail down whether the liquid water lasted a long time, or was merely a flash in the pan.

Greenhouse extinctions
It's pretty well accepted that a cosmic impact, involving a monster asteroid or comet, set off the extinction
event that led to the dinosaurs' demise 65 million years ago. But what about the other extinctions - including
the world's biggest die-off, which occurred about 250 million years ago? In arecently published book as well as
another soon-to-be-published book, Ward suggests that marauding microbes are among the prime suspects.
He calls this idea the "Medea hypothesis" - a moniker that mirrors James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesisand evokes
the mother from Greek mythology who killed her own children. "Life is rather like Medea - a very nasty mother,
not a good mother," Ward says.
One "Medea" scenario involves a rapid rise in carbon dioxide, usually from volcanic eruptions. That sets off a
greenhouse effect, which reduces ocean circulation, which leads to oxygen-deprived dead zones, which
encourage the rise of sulfur-reducing bacteria, which belch up hydrogen sulfide, which kills off species in the sea
and on land.
The idea has been rather controversial, but it's worth thinking about - what with CO2 levels on the rise
and hydrogen sulfide belching up off the coast of Namibia.



Humanity's mind-blowing rise

Donald Johanson, the paleoanthropologist who discovered the famous "Lucy" hominid fossil 35 years ago,
cited some thought-provoking statistics about humanity's rise: Ten thousand years ago, the whole of humanity
and our domesticated animals accounted for just 0.1 percent of Earth's total mammalian biomass. Today, that
figure is 98 percent.
That demonstrates just how much the future of life on Earth has come under our control. Our survival was a
close thing, however. ASU's Curtis Marean says genetic analysis indicates that the human species went
through a bottleneck about 140,000 years ago, which reduced our ancestral population to as few as 600
individuals. (This time frame will ring a bell with "Battlestar Galactica" fans.)
Marean surmises that the 600 may have survived a climatic downturn at that time by congregating around the
beaches of southern Africa and adding seafood to their diet. (The full research appears in the journal Nature.)
If humans had stuck to small-group hunting and gathering, our population would have hit a global equilibrium
level of about 70 million, ASU anthropologist Kim Hill says. But because of the rise of agriculture and urban
societies, the human population passed the 6-billion mark a decade ago, with more than 70 million added every
year. For what it's worth, Hill observes that the number of known human occupations has surpassed the
number of the world's known mammalian species (almost 7,000 vs. 5,400).

Dark morality
University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt blows my mind with his theory of dark morality - which is a
social-science parallel to dark energy and dark matter. When it comes to morals, everyone agrees that we
should whenever possible avoid harming people and provide care for the needy. The same goes for issues of
fairness and reciprocity ("Do unto others...") Haidt calls these "visible morals," analogous to the 4 percent of
the universe that we can see.
But those represent just the tip of the iceberg: Most of the mechanics of morality have to do with three "dark
morals": in-group loyalty, respect for authority, and issues of purity and sanctity. This is what accounts for
qualities such as patriotism, conformism and taboos about food and sex. (Haidt drew a laugh when he noted
that conservatives tend to focus on sex, while "liberals are getting increasingly concerned with food.")
Haidt's online research, conducted through YourMorals.org, indicates that liberals put a high value on morality
having to do with harm and care, fairness and reciprocity - but not on the dark morals. The more conservative
you are, the likelier you are to value all five moral dimensions roughly equally, as shown in the graph
accompanying this blog posting from Ethan Zuckerman.
Conservatives might be on the smarter track, at least if you size up things the way Charles Darwin did more
than a century ago. In Chapter 5 of "The Descent of Man," Darwin delves deeply into the role of morality in
natural selection:
"... When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being
equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready
to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other."

"The kind of morality Darwin is talking about here is dark morality," Haidt said.
For still more mind-blowing ideas, tune in to today's Webcast of the Origins Symposium's public sessions.
Update for 1:50 a.m. ET April 7: I've revised the reference to Darwin's views to remove the implication that

Haidt himself specifically said conservatives were on the right track. Haidt only implied that the kinds of moral
values that Darwin cited in "The Descent of Man" included the kinds of values given more weight by
conservatives than by liberals.
Explore related topics: science



Robert Lanzas work is a wake-up call to all of us
David Thompson, Astrophysicist, NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center
The heart of [biocentrism], collectively, is correctSo what Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does
Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say itor if we do say it, we only whisper it,
and in privatefuriously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no! Bless Robert
Lanza for creating this book, and bless Bob Berman for not dissuading friend Robert from going ahead with
itLanzas remarkable personal story is woven into the book, and is uplifting. You should enjoy this book, and
it should help you on your personal journey to understanding.
Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University
It is genuinely an exciting piece of workand coheres with some of the things biology and neuroscience are
telling us about the structures of our being. Just as we now know that the sun doesnt really move but we do
(we are the active agents), so it is suggesting that we are the entities that give meaning to the particular
configuration of all possible outcomes we call reality.
Ronald Green, Eunice & Julian Cohen Professor and Director, Ethics Institute, Dartmouth College
[Biocentrism] takes into account all the knowledge we have gained over the last few centuriesplacing in
perspective our biologic limitations that have impeded our understanding of greater truths surrounding our
existence and the universe around us. This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of
nature for centuries to come.
Anthony Atala, renowned scientist, W.H. Boyce Professor, Chair, and Director of the Institute for
Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine
Having interviewed some of the most brilliant minds in the scientific world, I found Dr. Robert Lanzas insights
into the nature of consciousness original and exciting. His theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most
ancient traditions of the world which say that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical
Deepak Chopra, Bestselling Author, one of the top heroes and icons of the century
Its a masterpiececombines a deep understanding and broad insight into 20th century physics and modern
biological science; in so doing, he forces a reappraisal of this hoary epistemological dilemmaBravo
Michael Lysaght, Professor and Director, Center for Biomedical Engineering, Brown University
Now that I have spent a fair amount of time the last few months doing a bit of writing, reading and thinking
about this, and enjoying it and watching it come into better focus, And as I go deeper into my Zen practice,
And as I am about half way through re-reading Biocentrism, My conclusion about the book Biocentrism is:
Holy shit, thats a really great book!
Ralph Levinson, Professor, University of California, Los Angeles



From physicist Scott M. T ysons book

The Unobservable Universe

I downloaded a digital copy of [Biocentrism] in the privacy of my home, where no one could observe my
buying or reading such a New Agey sort of cosmology book. Now, mind you, my motivation was not all that
pure. It was my intention to read the book so I could more effectively refute it like a dedicated physicist was
expected to. I consider myself to be firmly and exclusively entrenched in the cosmology camp embodied by
the likes of Stephen Hawking, Lisa Randall, Brain Greene, and Edward Witten. After all, you know what Julius
Caesar said: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I needed to know what the other camps were
thinking so I could better defend my position. It became necessary to penetrate the biocentrism camp.
The book had the completely opposite effect on me. The views that Dr. Lanza presented in this book changed
my thinking in ways from which there could never be retreat. Before I had actually finished reading the book,
it was abundantly obvious to me that Dr. Lanzas writings provided me with the pieces of perspective that I
had been desperately seeking. Everything I had learned and everything I thought I knew just exploded in my
mind and, as possibilities first erupted and then settled down, a completely new understanding emerged. The
information I had accumulated in my mind hadnt changed, but the way I viewed it did in a really big way.




Robert Lanza


Boston, Massachusetts, USA


Clinton, Massachusetts


United States


Advanced Cell Technology Wake Forest University School of Medicine

Alma mater

University of Pennsylvania

Known for

Stem cell biology, cloning,

tissue engineering, biocentrism


Jonas Salk, Christiaan Barnard,

and B.F. Skinner

Robert Paul Lanza (born 11 February 1956) is an American Doctor of Medicine, scientist, Chief Scientific Officer of Advanced Cell
Technology(ACT)[1] and Adjunct Professor at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

Robert Paul Lanza was born in Boston, Massachusetts, and grew up south of there, in Stoughton, Massachusetts.
Lanza "altered the genetics of chickens in his basement", and came to the attention of Harvard Medical
School researchers when he appeared at the university with his results.Jonas Salk, B. F. Skinner, and Christiaan
Barnard mentored Lanza over the next ten years.[2] Lanza attended the University of Pennsylvania, receiving BA and
MD degrees. There, he was a Benjamin Franklin Scholar and a University Scholar. Lanza was a Fulbright Scholar.
He currently resides in Clinton, Massachusetts.



Scientific work
Stem cell research

Lanza being interviewed by Barbara Walters.

Lanza was part of the team that cloned the world's first early stage human embryos for the purpose of
generating embryonic stem cells.[3][4] Lanza demonstrated that techniques used in preimplantation genetic
diagnosis could be used to generate embryonic stem cells without embryonic destruction.[5]
In 2001, he was also the first to clone an endangered species (a Gaur),[6] and in 2003, he cloned an endangered
wild ox (a Banteng)[7] from the frozen skin cells of an animal that had died at the San Diego Zoo nearly a quarter-ofa-century earlier.
Lanza and his colleagues were the first to demonstrate that nuclear transplantation could be used to reverse
the aging process[8] and to generate immune-compatible tissues, including the first organ grown in the
laboratory from cloned cells.[9]
Lanza showed that it is feasible to generate functional oxygen-carrying red blood cells from human embryonic
stem cells under conditions suitable for clinical scale-up. The blood cells could potentially serve as a source of
universal blood.[10][11]
His team discovered how to generate functional hemangioblasts (a population of "ambulance" cells[12]) from
human embryonic stem cells. In animals, these cells quickly repaired vascular damage, cutting the death rate
after a heart attack in half and restoring the blood flow to ischemic limbs that might otherwise have required
Recently, Lanza and a team led by Kwang-Soo Kim at Harvard University reported a safe method for generating
induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells.[14] Human iPS cells were created from skin cells by direct delivery of
proteins, thus eliminating the harmful risks associated with genetic and chemical manipulation. This new
method provides a potentially safe source of patient-specific stem cells for translation into the clinic. [15] Lanza
and Advanced Cell Technology expect to start the process for regulatory approval of what experts said would
be the first human trial involving induced plutipotent (iPS) stem cells created by reprogramming adult cells
back to an embryonic-like state. They want to test blood-clotting particles, called platelets, made from such
reprogrammed cells. Platelets don't carry the risk of genetic defects because they don't have DNA.[16]
Clinical trials for blindness

Lanzas team at Advanced Cell Technology has succeeded in getting stem cells to grow into retinal cells.[17] With this
technology, some forms of blindness may be curable,[18] includingmacular degeneration and Stargardt disease, currently
untreatable eye diseases that cause blindness in teenagers, young adults, and the elderly.
Advanced Cell Technology has received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for human trials using
human embryonic stem cells to treat degenerative eye diseases.[19][20] This treatment for eye disease uses stem cells
to re-create a type of cell in the retina that supports the photoreceptor cells needed for vision. These cells, called
retinal pigment epithelium (RPE), are often the first to die off in age-related macular degeneration and other
eye diseases, which in turn leads to loss of vision. Several years ago, Lanzas team found that human



embryonic stem cells could be a source of RPE cells, and subsequent studies found that these cells could
restore vision in animal models of macular degeneration.[21]
In recent studies, the same team of researchers showed that their stem-cell therapy provides a long-term
benefit in animal models of vision loss.[22] The retinal cells achieved near normal function in animals that
otherwise would have gone blind.
In September 2011, Lanzas company received approval from the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory
Agency to begin the first human embryonic stem cell trial in Europe.[23][24]Surgeons at Moorfields Eye Hospital in
London will inject healthy retinal cells into the eyes of patients with Stargardt's macular dystrophy, hoping to
slow, halt or even reverse the effects of the disease. The first person received the embryonic stem cell
treatment earlier this year (2012). The patient reports improved vision in the eye treated with the cells,
which The Guardian said represents a huge scientific achievement.[25]
First published report of embryonic stem cells in humans

Dr. Lanza and his colleagues at UCLAs Jules Stein Eye Institute published the first-ever report of the medical
use of human embryonic stem cells transplanted into human patients.[26] The researchers initiated two
prospective clinical studies to establish the safety and tolerability of subretinal transplantation of hESC-derived
retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) in patients with Stargardts macular dystrophy and dry age-related macular
After surgery, evidence confirmed cells had attached and continued to persist during the study. The
researchers did not identify any signs of hyperproliferation, tumorigenicity, or ectopic tissue formation in
either patient.
The patients who received the human embryonic stem cell transplants say their lives have been transformed
by the experimental procedure.[27] During the 4-month observation period neither patient lost vision. Best
corrected visual acuity improved from hand motions to 20/800 (and improved from 0 to 5 letters on the Early
Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] visual acuity chart) in the study eye of the patient with
Stargardts macular dystrophy, and vision also seemed to improve in the patient with dry age-related macular
degeneration.[26] One of the patients no longer needs a large magnifying glass to read and can reportedly
thread a needle, and the other has begun to go shopping on her own.[28] The future therapeutic goal of these
studies will be to treat patients earlier in the disease processes, potentially increasing the likelihood of visual
Main article: Biocentrism (cosmology)

In 2007, Lanza's article titled "A New Theory of the Universe" appeared in The American Scholar.[29] The essay
addressed Lanza's theory, biocentrism, which places biology above the other sciences.[30][31][32] Lanza's book "How
Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the Universe" followed in 2009.[33] Reception to Lanza's
theory has been mixed.[34]

Awards and public commentary

Lanza has received numerous awards, including a 2010 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Directors Award for
Translating Basic Science Discoveries into New and Better Treatments;[35] a 2010 Movers and Shakers Who
Will Shape Biotech Over the Next 20 Years (BioWorld, along with Craig Venter and President Barack Obama);[36] a
2005 Wired magazine "Rave Award" for medicine For eye-opening work on embryonic stem cells,[37] and a
2006 Mass High Tech journal All Star award for biotechnology for pushing stem cells future.[38][39]

Lanza has authored and co-edited books on topics involving tissue engineering, cloning, stem cells, and world health.




1984 Heart Transplantation: The Present Status of Orthotopic and Heterotopic Heart
Transplantation ISBN 0-85200-862-7
1985 Medical Science and the Advancement of World Health ISBN 0-03-071734-5
1994 Pancreatic Islet Transplantation: Volume I Procurement of Pancreatic Islets ISBN 1-57059-133-4
1994 Pancreatic Islet Transplantation: Volume II Immunomodulation of Pancreatic Islets ISBN 1-57059134-2

1994 Pancreatic Islet Transplantation: Volume III Immunoisolation of Pancreatic Islets ISBN 1-57059-135-0
1996 One World: The Health and Survival of the Human Species in the 21st Century ISBN 0-929173-33-3
1996 Yearbook of Cell and Tissue Transplantation ISBN 0-7923-3844-8
1997 Principles of Tissue Engineering ISBN 1-57059-342-6
1999 Cell Encapsulation Technology and Therapeutics ISBN 0-8176-4010
2000 Xeno: The Promise of Transplanting Animal Organs into Humans ISBN 0-19-512833-8
2000 Principles of Tissue Engineering, Second Edition ISBN 0-12-436630-9
2002 Methods of Tissue Engineering ISBN 0-12-436636-8
2002 Principles of Cloning ISBN 0-12-174597-X
2004 Handbook of Stem Cells: Volume 1 Embryonic Stem Cells ISBN 0-12-436642-2
2004 Handbook of Stem Cells: Volume 2 Adult and Fetal Stem Cells ISBN 0-12-436644-9
2006 Essentials of Stem Cell Biology ISBN 0-12-088442-9
2006 Methods in Enzymology: Volume 418 Embryonic Stem Cells ISBN 0-12-373648-X
2006 Methods in Enzymology: Volume 419 Adult Stem Cells ISBN 0-12-373650-1
2006 Methods in Enzymology: Volume 420 Stem Cell Tools and Other Experimental Protocols ISBN 0-12373651-X

2007 Principles of Tissue Engineering, Third Edition ISBN 0-12-370615-7

2008 Principles of Regenerative Medicine ISBN 978-0-12-369410-2
2009 Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the Universe ISBN 978-1933771-69-4

2009 Essential Stem Cell Methods ISBN 978-0-12-374741-9

2009 Essentials of Stem Cell Biology, Second Edition ISBN 978-0-12-374729-7
2009 Foundations of Regenerative Medicine ISBN 978-0-12-375085-3
2010 Principles of Regenerative Medicine, Second Edition ISBN 978-0-12-381422-7
2012 Handbook of Stem Cells: Volume 1 Embryonic Stem Cells, Second Edition ISBN 0-12-385942-5
2012 Handbook of Stem Cells: Volume 2 Adult and Fetal Stem Cells, Second Edition ISBN 978-0-12-385942-6
2013 Principles of Cloning, Second Edition ISBN 978-0-12-386541-0
2013 Principles of Tissue Engineering, Fourth Edition ISBN 978-0-12-398358-9


^ "Advanced Cell Technology Senior Executive Officers". Advanced Cell Technology. Retrieved 201205-03.
^ Fischer, Joannie (2001-11-25). "The First Clone". US News and World Report: 19. Retrieved 200808-20
^ Cibelli, Jose B.; Lanza, Robert P.; West, Michael D.; Ezzell, Carol (2001-11-24). "The First Human
Cloned Embryo". Scientific American: 14. Retrieved 2008-08-20
^ "Wired 12.01: Seven Days of Creation". Wired.com. 2009-01-04. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
^ Nature. "Access : Human embryonic stem cell lines derived from single blastomeres". Nature.
Retrieved 2009-08-09.
^ "Cloning Noah's Ark: Scientific American". Sciam.com. 2000-11-19. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
^ "Wild Cows Cloned". NPR. 2003-04-08. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
^ "Extension of Cell Life-Span and Telomere Length in Animals Cloned from Senescent Somatic
Cells". Science. 28 April 2000.






^ "Generation of histocompatible tissues using nuclear transplantation - Nature Biotechnology".

Nature.com. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
^ "Blood - Biological properties and enucleation of red blood cells from human embryoni".
Bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org. doi:10.1182/blood-2008-05-157198. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
[dead link]
^ [1]
^ Vergano, Dan (2007-05-08). "Elusive 'ambulance' cells are created - USATODAY.com".
Usatoday.Com<!. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
^ "Generation of functional hemangioblasts from human embryonic stem cells - Nature Methods".
Nature.com. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
^ "Cell Stem Cell - Generation of Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells by Direct Delivery of
Reprogramming Proteins". Cell.com. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
^ Park, Alice (2009-05-28). "Researchers Hail Stem Cells Safe for Human Use". TIME. Retrieved 200908-30.
^ ROCKOFF, JONATHAN (2012-12-13). "Stem-Cell Trial Without Embryo Destruction". Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved 2013-01-14.
^ "Stem Cells May Open Some Eyes". Wired.com. 2004-09-24. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
^ "Microsoft Word - stem cell aid may soon treat some blindness.doc" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-08-30.
^ "FDA Approves Second Trial of Stem-Cell Therapy". TIME. 2010-11-22. Retrieved 2010-12-07.
^ "Second human embryonic stem cell clinical trial to start". USA Today. 2010-11-22. Retrieved 201012-07.
^ "Human Embryonic Stem CellDerived Cells Rescue Visual Function in Dystrophic RCS Rats
Cloning Stem Cells". Liebertonline.com. 2006-09-29. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
^ "Long-term Safety and Function of RPE from Human Embryonic Stem Cells in Preclinical Models of
Macular Degeneration Stem Cells". Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. 2009-07-01. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
^ Sample, Ian (2011-09-22). "First trial of embryonic stem cell treatment in Europe gets green light".
London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2011-09-22.
^ "First European Embryonic Stem Cell Trial Gets Green Light". TIME. 2011-09-22. Retrieved 2011-0922.
^ Boseley, Sarah (2012-06-04). "Stem cell scientists take hope from first human trials but see long road
ahead". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2012-06-11.
a b c
"Embryonic stem cell trials for macular degeneration: a preliminary report". The Lancet. 2012-0225. Retrieved 2012-03-15.
^ "Early Success in a Human Embryonic Stem Cell Trial to Treat Blindness". TIME.com. 2012-01-24.
Retrieved 2012-03-15.
^ "Embryonic stem cells appear to restore some vision to legally blind patient". Washington Post. 201201-23. Retrieved 2012-03-15.
^ A New Theory of the Universe:Biocentrism builds on quantum physics by putting life into the
equation. The American Scholar. 2007.
^ Aaron Rowe (2009-01-04). "Will Biology Solve the Universe?". Wired.com. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
^ "Theory of every-living-thing - Cosmic Log - msnbc.com". Cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com. Retrieved
^ "Robert Lanza - Tag Story Index - USATODAY.com". Asp.usatoday.com. 2008-10-16. Retrieved
^ Lanza, Robert; Berman, Bob (April 14, 2009). Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys
to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe. Benbella Books. ISBN 978-1-933771-69-4.
^ "The Universe in Your Head". MSNBC. 2009-06-16. Retrieved 2010-03-31.
^ "Stem cell leaders Lanza, Kim win $1.9M NIH award". MassHighTech.com. 2010-09-22. Retrieved
^ "Advanced Cell Technologys Chief Scientific Officer Dr. Robert Lanza Honored By BioWorld
Magazine As Leader Who Could Shape Biotech Over Next 20 Years". Bloomberg.com. 2010-05-10.
Retrieved 2011-09-24.
^ "Wired 13.03: The 2005 Wired Rave Awards". Wired.com. 2009-01-04. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
^ "Dr. Robert Lanza Receives 2006 'All Star' Award for Biotechnology. Industry & Business Article Research, News, Information, Contacts, Divisions, Subsidiaries, Business Associations".
Goliath.ecnext.com. 2006-10-24. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
^ Songini, Marc (August 14, 2009). "Thought Leaders:Robert Lanza on stem cells and access to health
care". Mass High Tech. Retrieved 4 March 2010. "He was named a Mass High Tech All Star in 2006"



External links

Personal website: blog, and archive of books, articles and news.

Advanced Cell Technology website
Robert Lanza Biocentrism blog and archive of Lanza's biocentrism theory
Lanza's essays on The Huffington Post
Biocentrism / Robert Lanza's theory of everything

Authority control

VIAF: 84864906

This page was last modified on 10 February 2013 at 22:08.




A New Theory of the Universe



By Robert Lanza
While I was sitting one night with a poet friend watching a great opera performed in a tent under arc lights,
the poet took my arm and pointed silently. Far up, blundering out of the night, a huge Cecropia moth swept
past from light to light over the posturings of the actors. He doesnt know, my friend whispered excitedly.
Hes passing through an alien universe brightly lit but invisible to him. Hes in another play; he doesnt see us.
He doesnt know. Maybe its happening right now to us.

Loren Eiseley
The world is not, on the whole, the place we have learned about in our school books. This point was

hammered home one recent night as I crossed the causeway of the small island where I live. The pond was
dark and still. Several strange glowing objects caught my attention on the side of the road, and I squatted
down to observe one of them with my flashlight. The creature turned out to be a glowworm, the luminous
larva of the European beetle Lampyris noctiluca. Its segmented little oval body was primitivelike some
trilobite that had just crawled out of the Cambrian Sea 500 million years ago. There we were, the beetle and I,
two living objects that had entered into each others world. It ceased emitting its greenish light, and I, for my
part, turned off my flashlight.
I wondered if our interaction was different from that of any other two objects in the universe. Was this
primitive little grub just another collection of atomsproteins and molecules spinning away like the planets
round the sun? Had science reduced life to the level of a mechanists logic, or was this wingless beetle, by
virtue of being a living creature, creating its own physical reality?
The laws of physics and chemistry can explain the biology of living systems, and I can recite in detail the
chemical foundations and cellular organization of animal cells: oxidation, biophysical metabolism, all the
carbohydrates and amino acid patterns. But there was more to this luminous little bug than the sum of its
biochemical functions. A full understanding of life cannot be found by looking at cells and molecules through a
microscope. We have yet to learn that physical existence cannot be divorced from the animal life and
structures that coordinate sense perception and experience. Indeed, it seems likely that this creature was the
center of its own sphere of reality just as I was the center of mine.
Although the beetle did not move, it had sensory cells that transmitted messages to the cells in its brain.
Perhaps the creature was too primitive to collect data and pinpoint my location in space. Or maybe my
existence in its universe was limited to the perception of some huge and hairy shadow stabilizing a flashlight in
the air. I dont know. But as I stood up and left, I am sure that I dispersed into the haze of probability
surrounding the glowworms little world.
Our science fails to recognize those special properties of life that make it fundamental to material reality. This
view of the worldbiocentrismrevolves around the way a subjective experience, which we call
consciousness, relates to a physical process. It is a vast mystery and one that I have pursued my entire life. The
conclusions I have drawn place biology above the other sciences in the attempt to solve one of natures
biggest puzzles, the theory of everything that other disciplines have been pursuing for the last century. Such a



theory would unite all known phenomena under one umbrella, furnishing science with an all-encompassing
explanation of nature or reality.
We need a revolution in our understanding of science and of the world. Living in an age dominated by science,
we have come more and more to believe in an objective, empirical reality and in the goal of reaching a
complete understanding of that reality. Part of the thrill that came with the announcement that the human
genome had been mapped or with the idea that we are close to understanding the big bang rests in our desire
for completeness.
But were fooling ourselves.
Most of these comprehensive theories are no more than stories that fail to take into account one crucial
factor: we are creating them. It is the biological creature that makes observations, names what it observes,
and creates stories. Science has not succeeded in confronting the element of existence that is at once most
familiar and most mysteriousconscious experience. As Emerson wrote in Experience, an essay that
confronted the facile positivism of his age: We have learned that we do not see directly, but mediately, and
that we have no means of correcting these colored and distorting lenses which we are or of computing the
amount of their errors. Perhaps these subjectlenses have a creative power; perhaps there are no objects.
Biology is at first glance an unlikely source for a new theory of the universe. But at a time when biologists
believe they have discovered the universal cell in the form of embryonic stem cells, and when cosmologists
like Stephen Hawking predict that a unifying theory of the universe may be discovered in the next two
decades, shouldnt biology seek to unify existing theories of the physical world and the living world? What
other discipline can approach it? Biology should be the first and last study of science. It is our own nature that
is unlocked by means of the humanly created natural sciences used to understand the universe. Ever since the
remotest of times philosophers have acknowledged the primacy of consciousnessthat all truths and
principles of being must begin with the individual mind and self. Thus Descartess adage: Cogito, ergo sum. (I
think, therefore I am.) In addition to Descartes, who brought philosophy into its modern era, there were many
other philosophers who argued along these lines: Kant, Leibniz, Bishop Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Henri
Bergson, to name a few.
We have failed to protect science against speculative extensions of nature, continuing to assign physical and
mathematical properties to hypothetical entities beyond what is observable in nature. The ether of the 19th
century, the spacetime of Einstein, and the string theory of recent decades, which posits new dimensions
showing up in different realms, and not only in strings but in bubbles shimmering down the byways of the
universeall these are examples of this speculation. Indeed, unseen dimensions (up to a hundred in some
theories) are now envisioned everywhere, some curled up like soda straws at every point in space.
Todays preoccupation with physical theories of everything takes a wrong turn from the purpose of science
to question all things relentlessly. Modern physics has become like Swifts kingdom of Laputa, flying absurdly
on an island above the earth and indifferent to what is beneath. When science tries to resolve its conflicts by
adding and subtracting dimensions to the universe like houses on a Monopoly board, we need to look at our
dogmas and recognize that the cracks in the system are just the points that let the light shine more directly on
the mystery of life.
The urgent and primary questions of the universe have been undertaken by those physicists who are trying to
explain the origins of everything with grand unified theories. But as exciting and glamorous as these theories
are, they are an evasion, if not a reversal, of the central mystery of knowledge: that the laws of the world were
somehow created to produce the observer. And more important than this, that the observer in a significant
sense creates reality and not the other way around. Recognition of this insight leads to a single theory that
unifies our understanding of the world.
Modern science cannot explain why the laws of physics are exactly balanced for animal life to exist. For
example, if the big bang had been one-part-in-a billion more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for


the galaxies to form and for life to begin. If the strong nuclear force were decreased by two percent, atomic
nuclei wouldnt hold together. Hydrogen would be the only atom in the universe. If the gravitational force
were decreased, stars (including the sun) would not ignite. These are just three of more than 200 physical
parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that they cannot be random. Indeed, the lack of a
scientific explanation has allowed these facts to be hijacked as a defense of intelligent design.
Without perception, there is in effect no reality. Nothing has existence unless you, I, or some living creature
perceives it, and how it is perceived further influences that reality. Even time itself is not exempted from
biocentrism. Our sense of the forward motion of time is really the result of an infinite number of decisions
that only seem to be a smooth continuous path. At each moment we are at the edge of a paradox known as
The Arrow, first described 2,500 years ago by the philosopher Zeno of Elea. Starting logically with the premise
that nothing can be in two places at once, he reasoned that an arrow is only in one place during any given
instance of its flight. But if it is in only one place, it must be at rest. The arrow must then be at rest at every
moment of its flight. Logically, motion is impossible. But is motion impossible? Or rather, is this analogy proof
that the forward motion of time is not a feature of the external world but a projection of something within us?
Time is not an absolute reality but an aspect of our consciousness.
This paradox lies at the heart of one of the great revolutions of 20th-century physics, a revolution that has yet
to take hold of our understanding of the world and of the decisive role that consciousness plays in
determining the nature of reality. The uncertainty principle in quantum physics is more profound than its
name suggests. It means that we make choices at every moment in what we can determine about the world.
We cannot know with complete accuracy a quantum particles motion and its position at the same timewe
have to choose one or the other. Thus the consciousness of the observer is decisive in determining what a
particle does at any given moment.
Einstein was frustrated by the threat of quantum uncertainty to the hypothesis he called spacetime, and
spacetime turns out to be incompatible with the world discovered by quantum physics. When Einstein showed
that there is no universal now, it followed that observers could slice up reality into past, present, and, future,
in different ways, all with equal reality. But what, exactly, is being sliced up?
Space and time are not stuff that can be brought back to the laboratory in a marmalade jar for analysis. In fact,
space and time fall into the province of biologyof animal sense perceptionnot of physics. They are
properties of the mind, of the language by which we human beings and animals represent things to ourselves.
Physicists venture beyond the scope of their sciencebeyond the limits of material phenomena and law
when they try to assign physical, mathematical, or other qualities to space and time.
Return to the revelation that we are thinking animals and that the material world is the elusive substratum of
our conscious activity continually defining and redefining the real. We must become skeptical of the hard
reality of our most cherished conceptions of space and time, and of the very notion of an external reality, in
order to recognize that it is the activity of consciousness itself, born of our biological selves, which in some
sense creates the world.
Despite such things as the development of superconducting supercolliders containing enough niobiumtitanium wire to circle the earth 16 times, we understand the universe no better than the first humans with
sufficient consciousness to think. Where did it all come from? Why does the universe exist? Why are we here?
In one age, we believe that the world is a great ball resting on the back of a turtle; in the next, that a fairy
universe appeared out of nowhere and is expanding into nothingness. In one age, angels push and pummel
the planets about; in another age, everything is a meaningless accident. We exchange a world-bearing turtle
for a big bang.
We are like Loren Eiseleys moth, blundering from light to light, unable to discern the great play that blazes
under the opera tent. Turn now to the experimental findings of modern science, which require us to
recognizeat lastour role in the creation of reality from moment to moment. Consciousness cannot exist



without a living, biological creature to embody its perceptive powers of creation. Therefore we must turn to
the logic of life, to biologic, if we are to understand the world around us.
Space and time are the two concepts we take most for granted in our lives. We have been taught that they are

measurable. They exist. Theyre real. And thatreality has been reinforced every day of our lives.
Most of us live without thinking abstractly about time and space. They are such an integral part of our lives
that examination of them is as unnatural as an examination of walking or breathing. In fact, many people feel
silly talking about time and space in an abstract, analytical way. The question Does time exist? can seem like
so much philosophical babble. After all, the clock ticks, the years pass, we age and die. Isnt time the only thing
we can be certain of? Equally inconsonant is the question of whether or not space exists. Obviously space
exists, we might answer, because we live in it. We move through it, drive through it, build in it, measure it.
Time and space are easy to talk and think about. Find yourself short of either or bothlate for work, standing
in a stalled subway car packed with ridersand issues of time and space are obvious: Its crowded and Im
uncomfortable and my boss is going to kill me for being late. But time and space as our source of
comprehension and consciousness is an abstraction. Our day-to-day experiences indicate nothing of this
reality to us. Rather, life has taught us that time and space are external and eternal realities. They bound all
experiences and are more fundamental than life itself. They are above and beyond human experience.
As animals, we are organized, wired, to think this way. We use dates and places to define our experiences to
ourselves and to others. History describes the past by placing people and events in time and space. Scientific
theories of the big bang, geology, and evolution are steeped in the logic of time and space. They are essential
to our every movement and moment. To place ourselves as the creatorsof time and space, not as the subjects
of it, goes against our common sense, life experience, and education. It takes a radical shift of perspective for
any of us to entertain the idea that space and time are animal sense perceptions, because the implications are
so startling.
Yet we all know that space and time are not thingsobjects that you can see, feel, taste, touch, or smell. They
are intangible, like gravity. In fact they are modes of interpretation and understanding, part of the animal logic
that molds sensations into multidimensional objects.
We live on the edge of time, where tomorrow hasnt happened yet. Everything before this moment is part of
the history of the universe, gone forever. Or so we believe.
Think for a minute about time flowing forward into the future and how extraordinary it is that we are here,
alive on the edge of all time. Imagine all the days and hours that have passed since the beginning of time. Now
stack them like chairs on top of each other, and seat yourself on the very top. Science has no real explanation
for why were here, for why we exist now. According to the current physiocentric worldview, its just an
accident, a one-in-a-gazillion chance that I am here and that you are there. The statistical probability of being
on top of time or infinity is so small as to be meaningless. Yet this is generally how the human mind conceives
In classical science, humans place all things in time and space on a continuum. The universe is 15 to 20 billion
years old; the earth five or six. Homo erectusappeared four million years ago, but he took three-and-a-half
million years to discover fire, and another 490,000 to invent agriculture. And so forth. Time in a mechanistic
universe (as described by Newton and Einstein and Darwin) is an arrow upon which events are notched. But
imagine, instead, that reality is like a sound recording. Listening to an old phonograph doesnt alter the record
itself, and depending on where the needle is placed, you hear a certain piece of music. This is what we call the
present. The music before and after the song you are hearing is what we call the past and the future. Imagine,
in like manner, that every moment and day endures in nature always. The record does not go away. All nows
(all the songs on the record) exist simultaneously, although we can only experience the world (or the record)
piece by piece. If we could access all lifethe whole recordwe could experience it non-sequentially. We
could know our children as toddlers, as teenagers, as senior citizensall now. In the end, even Einstein


admitted, Now [Bessoone of his oldest friends] has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me.
That means nothing. People like us . . . know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a
stubbornly persistent illusion. That there is an irreversible, on-flowing continuum of events linked to galaxies
and suns and the earth is a fantasy.
Its important here to address a fundamental question. We have clocks that can measure time. If we can
measure time, doesnt that prove it exists? Einstein sidestepped the question by simply defining time as what
we measure with a clock. The emphasis for physicists is on the measuring. However, the emphasis should be
on the we, the observers. Measuring time doesnt prove its physical existence. Clocks are rhythmic things.
Humans use the rhythms of some events (like the ticking of clocks) to time other events (like the rotation of
the earth). This is not time, but rather, a comparison of events. Specifically, over the ages, humans have
observed rhythmic events in nature: the periodicities of the moon, the sun, the flooding of the Nile. We then
created other rhythmic things to measure natures rhythms: a pendulum, a mechanical spring, an electronic
device. We called these manmade rhythmic devices clocks. We use the rhythms of specific events to time
other specific events. But these are just events, not to be confused with time.
Quantum mechanics describes the tiny world of the atom and its constituents with stunning accuracy. It is

used to design and build much of the technology that drives modern societytransistors, lasers, and even
wireless communication. But quantum mechanics in many ways threatens not only our essential and absolute
notions of space and time, but indeed, all Newtonian-Darwinian conceptions of order and secure prediction.
I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics, said Nobel physicist Richard Feynman.
Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, But how can it be like that? because you will go
down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. The reason scientists go down the
drain is that they refuse to accept the immediate and obvious implications of the experimental findings of
quantum theory. Biocentrism is the only humanly comprehensible explanation for how the world can be the
way it is. But, as the Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg admits, Its an unpleasant thing to bring
people into the basic laws of physics.
In order to account for why space and time were relative to the observer, Einstein assigned tortuous
mathematical properties to an invisible, intangible entity that cannot be seen or touched. This folly continues
with the advent of quantum mechanics. Despite the central role of the observer in this theoryextending it
from space and time to the very properties of matter itselfscientists still dismiss the observer as an
inconvenience to their theories. It has been proven experimentally that when studying subatomic particles,
the observer actually alters and determines what is perceived. The work of the observer is hopelessly
entangled in that which he is attempting to observe. An electron turns out to be both a particle and a wave.
But how and where such a particle will be located remains entirely dependent upon the very act of
Pre-quantum physicists thought that they could determine the trajectory of individual particles with complete
certainty. They assumed that the behavior of particles would be predictable if everything were known at the
outsetthat there was no limit to the accuracy with which they could measure the physical properties of a
particle. But Werner Heisenbergs uncertainty principle showed that this is not the case. You can know either
the velocity of a particle or its location but not both. If you know one, you cannot know the other. Heisenberg
compared this to the little man and woman in a weather house, an old folk art device that functions as a
hygrometer, indicating the airs humidity. The two figures ride opposite each other on a balance bar. If one
comes out, Heisenberg said, the other goes in.
Consider for a moment that you are watching a film of an archery tournament, with the Zenos arrow paradox
in mind. An archer shoots, and the arrow flies. The camera follows the arrows trajectory from the archers
bow toward the target. Suddenly the projector stops on a single frame of a stilled arrow. You stare at the
image of an arrow in midflight. The pause in the film enables you to know the position of the arrowits just



beyond the grandstand, about 20 feet above the ground. But you have lost all information about its
momentum. It is going nowhere; its velocity is zero. Its path is no longer known. It is uncertain.
To measure the position precisely at any given instant is to lock in on one static frame, to put the movie on
pause, so to speak. Conversely, as soon as you observe momentum you cant isolate a frame, because
momentum is the summation of many frames. You cant know one and the other with complete accuracy.
There is uncertainty as you hone in, whether on motion or position.
All of this makes sense from a biocentric perspective: time is the inner form of animal sense that animates
eventsthe still framesof the spatial world. The mind animates the world like the motor and gears of a
projector. Each weaves a series of still pictures into an order, into the current of life. Motion is created in
our minds by running film cells together. Remember that everything you perceive, even this page, is being
reconstructed inside your head. Its happening to you right now. All of experience is an organized whirl of
information in your brain.
Heisenbergs uncertainty principle has its root here: position (location in space) belongs to the outer world,
and momentum (which involves the temporal) belongs to the inner world. By penetrating to the bottom of
matter, scientists have reduced the universe to its most basic logic. Time is not a feature of the external spatial
world. Contemporary science, said Heisenberg, today more than at any previous time, has been forced by
nature herself to pose again the old question of the possibility of comprehending reality by mental processes,
and to answer it in a slightly different way.
Twenty-five hundred years later, the Zeno arrow paradox finally makes sense. The Eleatic school of
philosophy, which Zeno brilliantly defended, was right. So was Heisenberg when he said, A path comes into
existence only when you observe it. There is neither time nor motion without life. Reality is not there with
definite properties waiting to be discovered but actually comes into being depending upon the actions of the
Another aspect of modern physics, in addition to quantum uncertainty, also strikes at the core of Einsteins
concept of discrete entities and spacetime. Einstein held that the speed of light is constant and that events in
one place cannot influence events in another place simultaneously. In the relativity theory, the speed of light
has to be taken into account for information to travel from one particle to another. However, experiment
after experiment has shown that this is not the case. In 1965, Irish physicist John Bell created an experiment
that showed that separate particles can influence each other instantaneously over great distances. The
experiment has been performed numerous times and confirms that the properties of polarized light are
correlated, or linked, no matter how far apart the particles are. There is some kind of instantaneousfaster
than lightcommunication between them. All of this implies that Einsteins concept of spacetime, neatly
divided into separate regions by light velocity, is untenable. Instead, the entities we observe are floating in a
field of mind that is not limited by an external spacetime.
The experiments of Heisenberg and Bell call us back to experience itself, the immediacy of the infinite here
and now, and shake our unexamined trust in objective reality. But another support for biocentrism is the
famous two hole experiment, which demands that we go one step further: Zenos arrow doesnt exist, much
less fly, without an observer. The two-hole experiment goes straight to the core of quantum physics. Scientists
have discovered that if they watch a subatomic particle pass through holes on a barrier, it behaves like a
particle: like a tiny bullet, it passes through one or the other holes. But if the scientists do notobserve the
particle, then it exhibits the behavior of a wave. The two-hole experiment has many versions, but in short: If
observed, particles behave like objects; if unobserved, they behave like waves and can go through more than
one hole at the same time.
Dubbed quantum weirdness, this wave-particle duality has befuddled scientists for decades. Some of the
greatest physicists have described it as impossible to intuit and impossible to formulate into words, and as
invalidating common sense and ordinary perception. Science has essentially conceded that quantum physics is



incomprehensible outside of complex mathematics. How can quantum physics be so impervious to metaphor,
visualization, and language?
If we accept a life-created reality at face value, it becomes simple to understand. The key question is waves of
what? Back in 1926, the Nobel laureate physicist Max Born demonstrated that quantum waves are waves of
probability, not waves of material as the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrdinger had theorized. They are
statistical predictions. Thus a wave of probability is nothing but a likely outcome. In fact, outside of that idea,
the wave is not there. Its nothing. As John Wheeler, the eminent theoretical physicist, once said, No
phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.
A particle cannot be thought of as having any definite existenceeither duration or a position in spaceuntil
we observe it. Until the mind sets the scaffolding of an object in place, an object cannot be thought of as being
either here or there. Thus, quantum waves merely define the potential location a particle can occupy. A wave
of probability isnt an event or a phenomenon, it is a description of the likelihood of an event or phenomenon
occurring. Nothing happens until the event is actually observed. If you watch it go through the barrier, then
the wave function collapses and the particle goes through one hole or the other. If you dont watch it, then
the particle detectors will show that it can go through more than one hole at the same time.
Science has been grappling with the implications of the wave-particle duality ever since its discovery in the
first half of the 20th century. But few people accept this principle at face value. The Copenhagen
interpretation, put in place by Heisenberg, Niels Bohr, and Born in the 1920s, set out to do just that. But it was
too unsettling a shift in worldview to accept in full. At present, the implications of these experiments are
conveniently ignored by limiting the notion of quantum behavior to the microscopic world. But doing this has
no basis in reason, and it is being challenged in laboratories around the world. New experiments carried out
with huge molecules called buckyballs show that quantum reality extends into the macroscopic world as well.
Experiments make it clear that another weird quantum phenomenon known as entanglement, which is usually
associated with the micro world, is also relevant on macro scales. An exciting experiment, recently proposed
(so-called scaled-up superposition), would furnish the most powerful evidence to date that the biocentric view
of the world is correct at the level of living organisms.
One of the main reasons most people reject the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory is that it leads
to the dreaded doctrine of solipsism. The late Heinz Pagels once commented: If you deny the objectivity of
the world unless you observe it and are conscious of it, then you end up with solipsismthe belief that your
consciousness is the only one. Indeed, I once had one of my articles challenged by a reader who took this
exact position. I would like to ask Robert Lanza, he wrote, whether he feels the world will continue to exist
after the death of his consciousness. If not, itll be hard luck for all of us should we outlive him (New Scientist,
What I would question, with respect to solipsism, is the assumption that our individual separateness is an
absolute reality. Bells experiment implies the existence of linkages that transcend our ordinary way of
thinking. An old Hindu poem says, Know in thyself and all one self-same soul; banish the dream that sunders
part from whole. If time is only a stubbornly persistent illusion, as we have seen, then the same can be said
about space. The distinction between here and there is also not an absolute reality. Without consciousness,
we can take any person as our new frame of reference. It is not my consciousness or yours alone, but ours.
Thats the new solipsism the experiments mandate. The theorist Bernard dEspagnat, a collaborator of Niels
Bohr and Enrico Fermi, has said that non-separability is now one of the most certain general concepts in
physics. This is not to say that our minds, like the particles in Bells experiment, are linked in any way that can
violate the laws of causality. In this same sense, there is a part of us connected to the glowworm by the pond
near my house. It is the part that experiences consciousness, not in our external embodiments but in our inner
being. We can only imagine and recollect things while in the body; this is for sure, because sensations and
memories are molded into thought and knowledge in the brain. And although we identify ourselves with our
thoughts and affections, it is an essential feature of reality that we experience the world piece by piece.



The sphere of physical reality for a glowworm and a human are decidedly different. However, the genome
itself is carbon-based. Carbon is formed at the heart of stars and supernova explosions, formative processes of
the universe. Life as we know it is limited by our spatio-temporal logicthat is, the genome traps us in the
universe with which we are familiar. Animals (including those that evolved in the past) span part of the
spectrum of that possibility. There are surely other information systems that correspond to other physical
realities, universes based on logic completely different from ours and not based on space and time. The
universe of space and time belong uniquely to us genome-based animals.
Eugene Wigner, one of the 20th centurys greatest physicists, called it impossible to formulate the laws of
[physics] in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness [of the observer]. Indeed, quantum
theory implies that consciousness must exist and that the content of the mind is the ultimate reality. If we do
not look at it, the moon does not exist in a definite state. In this world, only an act of observation can confer
shape and form to realityto a dandelion in a meadow or a seed pod.
As we have seen, the world appears to be designed for life not just at the microscopic scale of the atom, but at

the level of the universe itself. In cosmology, scientists have discovered that the universe has a long list of
traits that make it appear as if everything it containsfrom atoms to starswas tailor-made for us. Many are
calling this revelation the Goldilocks principle, because the cosmos is not too this or too that, but just right for
life. Others are calling it the anthropic principle, because the universe appears to be human centered. And still
others are calling it intelligent design, because they believe its no accident that the heavens are so ideally
suited for us. By any name, the discovery is causing a huge commotion within the astrophysics community and
At the moment, the only attempt at an explanation holds that God made the universe. But there is another
explanation based on science. To understand the mystery, we need to reexamine the everyday world we live
in. As unimaginable as it may seem to us, the logic of quantum physics is inescapable. Every morning we open
our front door to bring in the paper or to go to work. We open the door to rain, snow, or trees swaying in the
breeze. We think the world churns along whether we happen to open the door or not. Quantum mechanics
tells us it doesnt.
The trees and snow evaporate when were sleeping. The kitchen disappears when were in the bathroom.
When you turn from one room to the next, when your animal senses no longer perceive the sounds of the
dishwasher, the ticking clock, the smell of a chicken roastingthe kitchen and all its seemingly discrete bits
dissolve into nothingnessor into waves of probability. The universe bursts into existence from life, not the
other way around as we have been taught. For each life there is a universe, its own universe. We generate
spheres of reality, individual bubbles of existence. Our planet is comprised of billions of spheres of reality,
generated by each individual human and perhaps even by each animal.
Imagine again youre on the stalled subway car worried about being late for work. The engineers get the thing
running again and most of the other commuters soon disembark. What is your universe at the moment? The
screeching sound of metal wheels against metal tracks. Your fellow passengers. The ads for Rogaine and tech
schools. What is not your universe? Everything outside your range of perception does not exist. Now suppose
that Im with you on the train. My individual sphere of reality intersects with yours. We two human beings
with nearly identical perception tools are experiencing the same harsh lighting and uncomfortable sounds.
You get the idea. But how can this really be? You wake up every morning and your dresser is still across the
room from your comfortable spot in the bed. You put on the same pair of jeans and favorite shirt and shuffle
to the kitchen in slippers to make coffee. How can anyone in his right mind possibly suggest that the great
world out there is constructed in our heads?
To more fully grasp a universe of still arrows and disappearing moons, lets turn to modern electronics. You
know from experience that something in the black box of a DVD player turns an inanimate disc into a movie.
The electronics in the DVD converts and animates the information on the disc into a 3-D show. Likewise your



brain animates the universe. Imagine the brain as the electronics in your DVD player. Explained another way,
the brain turns electrochemical information from our five senses into an order, a sequenceinto a face, into
this pageinto a unified three-dimensional whole. It transforms sensory input into something so real that few
people ever ask how it happens. Stop and think about this for a minute. Our minds are so good at it that we
rarely ever question whether the world is anything other than what we imagine it to be. Yet the brainnot
the eyesis the organ sealed inside a vault of bone, locked inside the cranium, that sees the universe.
What we interpret as the world is brought into existence inside our head. Sensory information does not
impress upon the brain, as particles of light impress upon the film in a camera. The images you see are a
construction by the brain. Everything you are experiencing right now (pretend youre back on the subway) is
being actively generated in your mindthe hard plastic seats, the graffiti, the dark remnants of chewing gum
stuck to the floor. All physical thingssubway turnstiles, train platforms, newspaper racks, their shapes,
sounds, and odorsall these sensations are experienced inside your head. Everything we observe is based on
the direct interaction of energy on our senses, whether it is matter (like your shoe sticking to the floor of a
subway car) or particles of light (emitted from sparks as a subway train rounds a corner). Anything that we do
not observe directly, exists only as potentialor mathematically speakingas a haze of probability.
You may question whether the brain can really create physical reality. However, remember that dreams and
schizophrenia (consider the movie A Beautiful Mind) prove the capacity of the mind to construct a spatialtemporal reality as real as the one you are experiencing now. The visions and sounds schizophrenic patients
see and hear are just as real to them as this page or the chair youre sitting on.
We have all seen pictures of the primitive earth with its volcanoes overflowing with lava, or read about how

the solar system itself condensed out of a giant swirling gas cloud. Science has sought to extend the physical
world beyond the time of our own emergence. It has found our footsteps wandering backward until on some
far shore they were transmuted into a trail of mud. The cosmologists picked up the story of the molten earth
and carried its evolution backward in time to the insensate past: from minerals by degrees back through the
lower forms of matterof nuclei and quarksand beyond them to the big bang. It seems only natural that life
and the world of the inorganic must separate at some point.
We consider physics a kind of magic and do not seem at all fazed when we hear that the universeindeed the
laws of nature themselvesjust appeared for no reason one day. From the dinosaurs to the big bang is an
enormous distance. Perhaps we should remember the experiments of Francesco Redi, Lazzaro Spallanzani,
and Louis Pasteurbasic biological experiments that put to rest the theory of spontaneous generation, the
belief that life had arisen spontaneously from dead matter (as, for instance, maggots from rotting meat and
mice from bundles of old clothes)and not make the same mistake for the origin of the universe itself. We
are wont to imagine time extending all the way back to the big bang, before lifes early beginning in the seas.
But before matter can exist, it has to be observed by a consciousness.
Physical reality begins and ends with the animal observer. All other times and places, all other objects and
events are products of the imagination, and serve only to unite knowledge into a logical whole. We are
pleased with such books as Newtons Principia, or Darwins Origin of Species. But they instill a complacency in
the reader. Darwin spoke of the possibility that life emerged from inorganic matter in some warm little
pond. Trying to trace life down through simpler stages is one thing, but assuming it arose spontaneously from
nonliving matter wants for the rigor and attention of the quantum theorist.
Neuroscientists believe that the problem of consciousness can someday be solved once we understand all the
synaptic connections in the brain. The tools of neuroscience, wrote philosopher and author David Chalmers
(Scientific American, December 1995) cannot provide a full account of conscious experience, although they
have much to offer. . . . Consciousness might be explained by a new kind of theory. Indeed, in a 1983 National
Academy Report, the Research Briefing Panel on Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence stated that the
questions to which it concerned itself reflect a single underlying great scientific mystery, on par with
understanding the evolution of the universe, the origin of life, or the nature of elementary particles.


The mystery is plain. Neuroscientists have developed theories that might help to explain how separate pieces
of information are integrated in the brain and thus succeed in elucidating how different attributes of a single
perceived objectsuch as the shape, color, and smell of a flowerare merged into a coherent whole. These
theories reflect some of the important work that is occurring in the fields of neuroscience and psychology, but
they are theories of structure and function. They tell us nothing about how the performance of these
functions is accompanied by a conscious experience; and yet the difficulty in understanding consciousness lies
precisely here, in this gap in our understanding of how a subjective experience emerges from a physical
process. Even Steven Weinberg concedes that although consciousness may have a neural correlate, its
existence does not seem to be derivable from physical laws.
Physicists believe that the theory of everything is hovering right around the corner, and yet consciousness is
still largely a mystery, and physicists have no idea how to explain its existence from physical laws. The
questions physicists long to ask about nature are bound up with the problem of consciousness. Physics can
furnish no answers for them. Let man, declared Emerson, then learn the revelation of all nature and all
thought to his heart; this, namely; that the Highest dwells with him; that the sources of nature are in his own
Space and time, not proteins and neurons, hold the answer to the problem of consciousness. When we
consider the nerve impulses entering the brain, we realize that they are not woven together automatically,
any more than the information is inside a computer. Our thoughts have an order, not of themselves, but
because the mind generates the spatio-temporal relationships involved in every experience. We can never
have any experience that does not conform to these relationships, for they are the modes of animal logic that
mold sensations into objects. It would be erroneous, therefore, to conceive of the mind as existing in space
and time before this process, as existing in the circuitry of the brain before the understanding posits in it a
spatio-temporal order. The situation, as we have seen, is like playing a CDthe information leaps into threedimensional sound, and in that way, and in that way only, does the music indeed exist.
We are living through a profound shift in worldview, from the belief that time and space are entities in the
universe to one in which time and space belong to the living. Think of all the recent book titlesThe End of
Science, The End of History, The End of Eternity, The End of Certainty, The End of Nature, and The End of
Time. Only for a moment, while we sort out the reality that time and space do not exist, will it feel like
Robert Lanza is Vice President of Research and Scientific Development at Advanced Cell Technology and a
professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. He has written 20 scientific books and won a Rave
award for medicine from Wired magazine and an all star award for biotechnology from Mass High Tech: The
Journal of New England Technology.

Read also, please, from the beautiful essays: http://theamericanscholar.org/dept/essays/




ACTs Clinical Partner Receives FDA Approval to Initiate Clinical Trial Using the
Companys hESC-derived Cells to Treat Severe Myopia
UCLAs Investigator IND Application for Embryonic Stem Cell-Based Clinical Trial to Evaluate Safety and
Tolerability in Patients with Severe Myopia, or Nearsightedness, Approved by FDA
MARLBOROUGH, Mass. February 11, 2013 Advanced Cell Technology, Inc.s (ACT; OTCBB: ACTC or the
Company), clinical partner, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), has received approval of its
Investigator Investigational New Drug (IND) Application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), led
by Steven Schwartz, M.D., Ahmanson Professor of Ophthalmology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at
UCLA and retina division chief at UCLAs Jules Stein Eye Institute, to initiate a Phase I/II study using ACTs
retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells derived from human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) to treat myopic
macular degeneration (MMD, or myopia), commonly known as nearsightedness. The primary focus of the
study will be to evaluate the safety in patients with severe myopia of the type that causes fissures in the RPE
layer of the eye. Dr. Schwartz is the principal investigator in each of ACTs two Phase I/II clinical trials for
Stargardts macular dystrophy and dry age-related macular degeneration (dry AMD) using RPE cells derived
from hESCs. The approval was announced by Dr. Schwartz in his presentation at Bascom Palmer Eye Institutes
tenth annual angiogenesis meeting, Angiogenesis, Exudation, and Degeneration 2013, on Saturday, February
9 in Miami, Fla.
We are encouraged by Dr. Schwartzs keen interest in the evaluation of ACTs RPE cells in potentially treating
myopia, commented Gary Rabin, chairman and CEO of ACT. We are pleased to be on track to broaden the
scope of our RPE program with the initiation of the new Investigator IND. Nearsightedness is a very common
condition, worldwide, and it is estimated that roughly 30% of cases are high, or severe, myopia.
The myopia clinical trial will follow a similar protocol as the companys three other human clinical trials in the
U.S. and Europe using hESC-derived RPE cells to treat forms of macular degeneration. The trial will enroll a
total of 12 patients, with cohorts of three patients in an ascending dosage format. The trial is a prospective,
open-label study designed to determine the safety and tolerability of hESC-derived RPE cells following subretinal transplantation into patients with myopia at 12 months, the studys primary endpoint.
Preliminary results from the U.S. Stargardts and Dry Age Related Macular Degeneration trials
were reported in The Lancet earlier this year.
We look forward to initiating the clinical trial, commented Dr. Schwartz. Myopic degeneration is an
increasingly important global cause of permanent central vision loss for which there is no accepted treatment.
Applying our key learnings from the ongoing ACT-sponsored stem cell trials allows the research promise of
regenerative medicine to include myopic vision loss.
Robert Lanza, M.D., ACTs chief scientific officer, commented, Myopia is one of the most common medical
ailments in the world and myopic patients have a higher risk of permanent vision loss due to complications



such as fissures in the RPE layer of the eye. We are anticipating Dr. Schwartzs evaluations, potentially leading
to a treatment for those patients at high risk of vision loss from this condition.

About Advanced Cell Technology, Inc.

Advanced Cell Technology, Inc., is a biotechnology company applying cellular technology in the field of
regenerative medicine. For more information, visit www.advancedcell.com.

About the Jules Stein Eye Institute at UCLA

Established in 1966, the Jules Stein Eye Institute at UCLA represents the culmination of a dream shared by
ophthalmologist, businessman and philanthropist Dr. Jules Stein and his wife, Doris, of creating a worldrenowned center dedicated to the preservation of vision and the prevention of blindness. The Institutes
comprehensive programs for the care of patients with eye disorders, research in the vision sciences, education
in the field of ophthalmology and outreach to the community, coupled with its state-of-the art facilities, have
brought national and international recognition to UCLA and the Institute, as it continues its mission to advance
ophthalmology worldwide.

Forward-Looking Statements
Statements in this news release regarding future financial and operating results, future growth in research and
development programs, potential applications of our technology, opportunities for the company and any
other statements about the future expectations, beliefs, goals, plans, or prospects expressed by management
constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995. Any statements that are not statements of historical fact (including statements containing the words
will, believes, plans, anticipates, expects, estimates, and similar expressions) should also be
considered to be forward-looking statements. There are a number of important factors that could cause actual
results or events to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements, including:
limited operating history, need for future capital, risks inherent in the development and commercialization of
potential products, protection of our intellectual property, and economic conditions generally. Additional
information on potential factors that could affect our results and other risks and uncertainties are detailed
from time to time in the companys periodic reports, including the report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2011. Forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs, opinions, and expectations of the
companys management at the time they are made, and the company does not assume any obligation to
update its forward-looking statements if those beliefs, opinions, expectations, or other circumstances should
change. Forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs, opinions, and expectations of the companys
management at the time they are made, and the company does not assume any obligation to update its
forward-looking statements if those beliefs, opinions, expectations, or other circumstances should change.
There can be no assurance that the Companys clinical trials will be successful.
CEOcast, Inc., James Young, 212-732-4300
ACT Corporate Communications, Bill Douglass, 646-450-3615
Russo Partners, Martina Schwarzkopf, Ph.D., 212-845-4292
Jules Stein Eye Institute:
Elaine Schmidt, eschmidt@mednet.ucla.edu, 310-794-2272



Other Links:


Scientific Papers




De gasit pe: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11715679/Inteligenta-materiei

Profesorul universitar dr. Dumitru Constantin-Dulcan este medic neurolog si psihiatru de
excelenta, autor a numeroase monografii, tratate si carti de inalta valoare stiintifica, dar si
eseistica, cu ample deschideri spre Filosofia Stiintei. Cartea sa, Inteligenta materiei, un bestseller care a facut voga, a fost distinsa cu premiul "Vasile Conta" al Academiei Romane (1992).
Omul de stiinta roman Dumitru Constantin-Dulcan este membru al unor prestigioase societati
stiintifice nationale si internationale, autor de brevete de inventii inregistrate la OSIM, titular al
unor cursuri universitare importante, precum si detinatorul a numeroase premii stiintifice si
literare. A studiat, lucrat si calatorit in spatiul occidental (Europa, SUA, Canada, Australia), dar si
in cel oriental (China, Japonia, India).
"Constiintei noastre i s-a dat in primire un creier si creierului un trup" - spune Dumitru
Religia" mea este o cutare i o trire a esenei ultime a Universului i nu are nimic comun cu
modul istoric n care s-au implicat instituiile sale reprezentative. Ele pot persista sau pot s
dispar n funcie de vntul istoriei i de capacitatea lor de adaptare, de remodelare, de
actualizare, dar esena de dincolo de mruntele orgolii i ambiii omeneti, va fi etern.
Pledez pentru eternitatea acestei esene.




Dela Aurel Dumitrascu
E medic neurolog i psihiatru, doctor n tiine medicale, bun cunosctor al filosofiei tiinei i pionier n
scrierile din domeniul contiinei. O minte strlucit, cu o curiozitate tiinific ieit din comun, care nu
nceteaz s caute rspuns la marile ntrebri ale existenei. Nu doar distinciile medicale internaionale i-au
adus recunoaterea, ci i curajul de a rsturna viziunea materialist asupra lumii, demonstrnd, ntr-o carte
publicat prima oar n 1981, c exist o "minte universal", care ordoneaz i coordoneaz toate lucrurile din
jur. "Inteligena materiei", cartea care a bulversat lumea tiinific romneasc, a fost bestsellerul acelor ani.
Au existat chiar voci care au considerat-o demn de premiul Nobel. Ascensiunea ei a fost curmat brusc de
regimul comunist, speriat de ideile prea ndrznee pe care le susinea. A fost retras de la Premiul Academiei
Romne, care i s-a nmnat abia la a doua ediie, n 1992. Dup mai bine de trei decenii de la apariie, cele mai
multe din intuiiile domnului profesor Dulcan au fost confirmate de tiina actual. Dac destinul crii i-ar fi
fost favorabil i ar fi beneficiat la timp de o traducere, numele lui Dumitru Constantin Dulcan ne-ar fi reprezentat azi la nivel internaional, aezat cu mndrie alturi de al celorlali trei mari promotori ai Noii
Spiritualiti: Stanislav Grof, Ervin Laszlo i Peter Russell.

Diminea de var
- Domnule doctor, v propun s pornim pe firul biografiei. ntreaga dvs. via ai dedicat-o studiului. Ce v-a
condus spre ceea ce suntei astzi? Ai simit fascinaia pentru cunoatere de mic?
- De foarte mic. mi amintesc o diminea de var din satul meu argeean, Mrghia. Eram copil. Dormisem pe
prisp i m-am trezit cu faa spre rsrit. Cerul avea o culoare nnebunitor de frumoas i, privindu-l, mi se
prea c mi se adreseaz, c vrea s-mi spun, uite, exist! Existam, dar nu tiam ce sens are viaa. Eram prea
mic ca s-mi pot rspunde. Dar mi-am propus atunci s aflu. tiu c pare de necrezut, dar de la vrsta aceea,
mi-am fcut, pas cu pas, un program de instruire pe care nu l-am mai abandonat niciodat.
- Ai studiat medicina. De ce, dintre toate disciplinele, ai ales tocmai neurologia?
- Era parte din planul fcut n copilrie. Am intuit de mic c medicina mi poate oferi ceea ce eu nu puteam afla
doar din cri. Iar neurologia m ajuta s descifrez complexitatea creierului uman. Creierul e cel care deine
misterul ntregii noastre existene. nelegnd creierul, nelegem n bun parte funcionalitatea organismului
viu. Dup absolvirea Medicinei, am urmat ns i cursuri serale de iniiere muzical, de istoria culturii i
civilizaiei. Am citit fizic, matematic, istoria religiilor i filosofie. coala mi impunea concepia ei materialist,
religiile mi spuneau c exist un Dumnezeu. N-aveam dect o finalitate n toate cutrile mele: s aflu cine are
dreptate i s rspund ntrebrii din copilrie: cine sunt eu? Dup ce am terminat facultatea, cutnd s vd
dac e adevrat ce postuleaz tiina, cum c lumea anorganic (pietrele, apa) face la un moment dat saltul
spre lumea organic (spre viu), ntr-o sear a anului 1976, am avut revelaia rspunsului. Dac nu introducem
n aceast ecuaie o raiune de dincolo de noi, pietrele niciodat n-or s ajung Adam i Eva
.Exist o inteligen a materiei
Premiul de Excelen "Excelsior" oferit de cotidianul Argeul 2009
- O revelaie care a dus, patru ani mai trziu, la apariia "Inteligenei materiei". Cartea a fcut vlv la vremea ei prin teoriile pe care le propunea. I-ai putea rezuma coninutul pentru cititorii revistei noastre?
- Dac ar trebui s rezum ntr-o fraz ce am scris n cartea asta, a spune aa: exist o inteligen a materiei.
Orice manifestare din univers, ncepnd de la macrocosmos i pn la microcosmos, are ca substrat o
inteligen. De pild, doi atomi de hidrogen i unul de oxigen vor da ntotdeauna o molecul de ap, nu
altceva. Pn i particulele, cuantele, au un rudiment de inteligen al lor. Exact asta ncerc s art n cele
peste 300 de pagini ale crii, survolnd toate sursele de informaie accesibile, de la tiin la religie, de la


experimentul de laborator la experiena personal ca medic neurolog. Cu alte cuvinte, demonstrez c n
spatele tuturor lucrurilor se afl Dumnezeu. Ca s scriu aceast carte, am citit materia multor discipline
universitare. Astzi, bazndu-m pe o cunoatere tiinific, pot afirma cu certitudine c lucrurile nu au pornit
dintr-o ntmplare i viaa nu e accidental pe pmnt, aa cum spun manualele de biologie. Ba mai mult,
afirm c universul se sprijin pe legi morale. Am ajuns la concluzia c i creierul respect un cod etic, un cod
moral, similar cu al marilor religii. Cum tim asta? Iat un experiment. La nceputul anilor 2000, la Universitatea Wisconsin, s-au fcut cercetri pe clugri tibetani. S-a constatat c la emoiile pozitive - empatie,
respect, admiraie etc - se activa o arie din lobul frontal stng, n timp ce trirea sentimentelor negative activa
o arie din lobul frontal drept. n consecin, creierul face o distincie ntre bine i ru. Dar creierul e o mas de
carne i nu are cum s fac selecia ntre bine i ru doar prin sine. E clar c exist o contiin care face
aceast triere, iar ea se supune la rndul ei unei legi morale, altfel cum ar face-o? Deci, legea lui Dumnezeu
este legea Binelui. Dar poate argumentul acesta nu e suficient ca s nelegei de ce universul e construit pe
tiparul Binelui. V dau alt exemplu, la nivel de chimie: gndurile negative la nivel de chimie a sngelui determin n corp un viraj spre aciditate (care nseamn mbtrnire, boal, degenerescen). Faptele pozitive i
senine duc corpul ctre un ph alcalin, care se traduce prin longevitate i vitalitate. Pn i ADN-ul nostru face
diferena ntre bine i ru. S-a luat o prob de ADN de la un individ, a fost dus la distan i monitorizat prin
mijloace de laborator. Asupra individului s-au exercitat diverse influene, negative sau pozitive. La cele
negative, spirala ADN-ului se contracta, la cele pozitive se decontracta. Pn i n ADN-ul nostru sunt nscrise
premisele sntii i bolii.

Devenim ceea ce gndimBoala e prin urmare rezultatul tuturor influenelor negative?

- Venim pe pmnt pentru a evolua, dar prin erori repetate ne crem nite dezechilibre, nite energii negative,
care nasc suferina. Suferina este rezultatul comportamentului nostru, care a ajuns, de-a lungul secolelor, s
fie ntr-un mare dezacord cu biologia noastr i cu legile fiinrii noastre. N-am fost creai de Dumnezeu s
suferim, biologia noastr o demonstreaz: avem nevoie de fericire. n concluzie, devenim ceea ce gndim,
sntoi sau bolnavi, fericii sau nefericii. Chiar i la nivelul creierului, nnoirea celulelor noastre nervoase este
favorizat de o gndire constructiv, optimist i este inhibat de agresivitate, furie i depresie. Orice emoie
negativ blocheaz celulele sistemului imunitar pentru cinci, ase ore. Asta nseamn c un gnd de invidie, de
rutate, un necaz ne las organismul fr aprare pentru cteva ore. tim din descoperirile fizicii cuantice c
orice gnd are un substrat de cmp, acest cmp are efect de dispersie, se propag n spaiu. Cnd ne gndim
insistent la un lucru, l crem n planul de dincolo de noi, iar el se ntoarce la noi. Putem, deci, face ru cu un
gnd, nu numai nou, ci i celorlali din jur i ntreg universului. Am avut ocazia s verific i n practic lucrurile
astea. Pacienii optimiti, ferm convini c se vor vindeca, i ajutau organismul s lupte cu boala i chiar se
recuperau. Ceilali, pesimitii care se plngeau n permanen, se otrveau cu propriile gnduri, iar starea lor
se deteriora. mi pare ru c nu am avut resurse financiare s-mi fac un sanatoriu, n care s le vorbesc
bolnavilor despre boala lor i despre comportamentul care duce la vindecare. A nvinge boala nseamn, n
primul rnd, a o nelege i a nu te revolta contra ei.- - Autosugestia e foarte la mod n ziua de azi. Credei i dvs. c am putea fi mai sntoi doar prin puterea
- Sunt i boli care ne sunt date ca lecii. Dar n cele mai multe cazuri, bolile noastre au cauze spirituale: invidia,
rutatea, competiia acerb, egoismul i dorina de rzbunare, la care se adaug frica i stresul generat de o
societate ultratehnologizat. Stresul nseamn moartea celulei. nc de la anul 1000, Avicenna a fcut un
experiment i a pus un miel ntr-o cuc lng cuca unui lup. Mielul a murit, pur i simplu, de fric. Cnd ne e
fric, nu se mai secret chimia necesar i celula moare. Pe termen lung, asta nseamn scleroze, boli
degenerative, Parkinson i demen. Ce s mai vorbim despre faptul c epoca noastr e una din epocile cu cele
mai multe cazuri de depresii i suicid. tiai c depresia este unul din factorii care favorizeaz apariia bolii
Alzheimer? Depresia este o otrav pentru organism. Ca s rspund ns la ntrebare, ar trebui s nelegem c



nu ne putem pstra sntatea dect gndind i fcnd binele, pentru a fi n armonie cu universul. Iisus avea
dreptate cnd ndemna pe fiecare s-i iubeasc aproapele ca pe sine nsui.

"Cnd crezi, i mobilizezi toate mecanismele de vindecare"

- Faptul c ai demonstrat tiinific existena lui Dumnezeu v-a ntrit i mai mult credina? V-ai apropiat i
mai mult de Hristos?
- Eu nu cred n Iisus doar pentru c aa am fost educat de prini. Sunt un intelectual trecut prin coli, care a
cutat s-i explice lumea. Dar dintre toate marile spirite care au trit pe Terra (Buda, Confucius, Pitagora etc)
Iisus are cea mai perfect acoperire tiinific. Am luat rnd pe rnd toate noiunile predicate de el i toate pot
fi explicate n termenii tiinelor actuale. V dau doar un exemplu. Ce nseamn iertarea? Din punct de vedere
spiritual, nseamn pace i armonie. Din punct de vedere tiinific, prin iertare, la nivel de ADN, modelul
negativ este pur i simplu ters i se instaleaz n corp o bun chimie i un echilibru energetic. E fantastic, e pur
i simplu ca resetarea unui computer. Despre puterea credinei, am vorbit deja. Iisus ar fi putut zice "eu te-am
vindecat", dar a ales s spun "credina ta te-a vindecat". Cnd crezi, i mobilizezi toate mecanismele de
vindecare. Dar a ti c Dumnezeu exist nu e totul. Doar religia i d trirea emoiei transformatoare, acea
deschidere a sufletului prin care trieti cu adevrat relaia cu Dumnezeu. Nu doar mersul la biseric e
important, ci i puterea rugciunii pe care o poi face oriunde.
- Mai sunt oare canoanele i dogmele Bisericii n acord cu spiritul vremurilor noastre?
- Din pcate, istoria ne dovedete c i tiina a greit, negndu-l pe Dumnezeu, i Biserica a greit, arzndu-l
pe Giordano Bruno pe rug sau condamnndu-l pe Galilei. 200 de ani i-au trebuit Bisericii s accepte c
pmntul se nvrte n jurul soarelui i nu invers. n viitor, tiina i religia trebuie s-i dea mna, s se
ntlneasc la jumtate de drum, pentru a ajunge la o singur teorie care explic lumea. Orice excludere a unei
pri sau aducere la exagerare a alteia duce la rigiditate sau fanatism. Fundamentalitii susin c la Dumnezeu
nu se ajunge dect pe o singur cale. i totui, Dumnezeu nsui ne spune prin o mie de surse c drumurile
spre el sunt nenumrate. Vrful muntelui e unul singur, indiferent pe ce versant l urci. Pn la urm, religiile
vor ajunge la o concordie universal. Nu este admisibil s spun c, dac eu sunt ortodox, iar tu catolic, eu sunt
agreat de Dumnezeu, i tu nu.

.- Criza lumii de azi nu e i o criz a spiritului?

"Omenirea se ndreapt spre o nou contiin"
- Criza lumii actuale este n primul rnd o criz moral, pentru c oamenii nu tiu cine sunt cu adevrat.
Omenirea se ndreapt spre o nou contiin, spre o nou umanitate. Suntem ntr-un moment de cotitur. n
urmtorii 10, 15 ani, vom ajunge n cu totul alt lume, o lume a spiritualitii. Aceast aliniere a planetelor care
s-a produs acum nu e doar un detaliu de ordinul amuzamentului catastrofic. Este o realitate astronomic. N-o
s ne creasc cinci mini, cu siguran! Schimbrile vor fi la nivel de contiin. Intrm ntr-o zon de energie
cu o frecven mult mai nalt dect cea n care eram. Asta va produce mutaii fundamentale n creier i la
nivel de ADN. Deja s-au fcut teste pe un lot de copii nscui ntre 1982-1983 i s-a constatat c nivelul lor de
inteligen e mult peste nivelul stabilit anterior pentru genii. Se crede i c ADN-ul nostru ar putea s ajung,
n plan energetic, la 36 de spirale n loc de 2. Lumea viitoare va fi a spiritualitii i a celor supradotai. Aproape
mi pare ru ca nu am vrsta s-o mai triesc.

"i mulumesc lui Dumnezeu c nu m-a fcut o frunz"

- V-ai dedicat ntreaga via eforturilor de a cunoate. A meritat? Se spune c atunci cnd nelegi totul,
viaa devine mai trist.
- Din contr, cunoaterea aduce cea mai mare bucurie. Ea aduce adevrul despre tine. E exact cum spune Iisus,
"i vei cunoate adevrul, iar adevrul v va face liberi". S nelegi lumea i aduce o eliberare enorm de
erori de gndire i prejudeci. i d bucuria de a descoperi singur resorturi i corespondene. i mulumesc lui



Dumnezeu c nu m-a fcut o frunz, o piatr sau un cine. C mi-a dat posibilitatea s fiu om i s ajung s tiu
ceea ce tiu. E extraordinar s poi afla cine eti, de unde vii i ncotro te duci.
- i cine suntem noi, oamenii? Poate tiina de azi s rspund la o ntrebare cu care filosofia se chinuie de
- Suntem contiin ntrupat i suntem nemuritori. Timpul nostru n raport cu timpul de dincolo este doar o
clip fr importan. Venim de undeva i plecm spre altceva, viaa pe Pmnt e doar o scurt vizit, o lecie
pentru evoluia noastr. Facem cu toii parte dintr-un plan divin i suntem trimii aici cu o misiune. Venim cu
un bagaj de talente i predispoziii care servesc misiunii noastre pe pmnt. Despre lucrurile acestea putem
afla mai multe de la cei care au traversat experiena morii clinice.Ai ntlnit, n practica dvs. medical, cazuri de moarte clinic? Ce ne spune experiena lor?
- Experiena morii clinice pledeaz pentru existena unei alte dimensiuni, spiritual, n univers, dincolo de cea
a lumii de pe Pmnt, n care trim adevrata noastr via. Cei care au trecut prin moartea clinic i au
descris lumea de dincolo vorbesc despre ntlnirea cu o Fiin de Lumin, pe care o asimileaz cu Dumnezeu.
- Dac suntem nemuritori, de ce ne e att de fric de moarte?
- Pentru c nu cunoatem adevrul despre noi i credem c totul ncepe i se sfrete pe Pmnt. Moartea e
experiena contiinei care trece din planul fizic n planul spiritual. M-am ntrebat mult timp de ce murim. De
ce ne uzm fizic, dac energia fundamental, cuantic, este infinit i nu se consum? Am neles trziu c aici
suntem doar la o coal, iar corpul e uniforma necesar aici. Numai ntrupai n carne i oase avem senzaiile
tuturor lucrurilor. Implicarea simurilor e necesar leciei pe care o avem de nvat. Moartea e trecerea n alt
dimensiune, care e cea mai fericit.
- Dup mai bine de patru decenii de practic medical n neurologie i psihiatrie, creierul uman v mai
ascunde vreo tain?
- Creierul pstreaz nc multe enigme. El este receptorul contiinei sau, altfel spus, al lui Dumnezeu ntr-un
sens mai larg. Facem o encefalogram i nu distingem dect o linie sinuoas a activitii electrice a creierului,
dar nici o singur volut nu ne spune c ea nseamn un cuvnt anume sau un gnd. Cum transcende informaia din planul fiziologic n planul contiinei rmne de neneles. De aceea am fost printre primii care au
ndrznit s afirme c nu contiina e produsul creierului, ci creierul este produsul contiinei. Creierul nostru e
doar un receptor. Aa se explic cum ne reamintim tot nainte de moarte, n filmul vieii, dei la btrnee uitm o mulime de lucruri. Neuronii mbtrnesc i mor, sunt ca un radio defect care nu mai recepioneaz undele. Memoria ns nu se pierde, e undeva n cmpul informaional de deasupra. V dai seama ce mister e n

"Dac m-am nscut n Romnia, nseamn c trebuie s fiu aici"

- S trecem i la cele lumeti. Ai avut multe ecouri n Occident, dup apariia crii "Inteligena materiei".
Cu toate astea, nu ai emigrat. V-am gsit la Sinaia, ntr-un mic birou cu vedere spre munte. n locul
deschiderii, ai ales izolarea.
- Cnd am scris Inteligena materiei, am plecat pe drumul sta de unul singur, ntr-o ar cu un regim opresiv,
unde numai de libera circulaie a ideilor nu putea fi vorba. Ulterior am aflat c n Statele Unite se organizau
ntlniri de specialiti care puneau aceleai probleme. Am avut o singur dorin atunci, n 1981, s nu fiu
depit n cunoatere, mcar pn n anul 2000. i nu numai c n-am fost, dar mai sunt nc lucruri de scris i
demonstrat. De rmas, a fi putut rmne la Paris, n 1986. N-am fcut-o pentru c sunt legat afectiv de
pmntul i de neamul meu. i din contiina faptului c, dac m-am nscut n Romnia, nseamn c trebuie
s fiu aici. Profesor sunt, o main am, o cas am. Ce-mi mai trebuie? Aa cum neleg eu lucrurile n universul
sta, singura mea referin e acolo sus. Mai departe nu ine de mine.
- Ai practicat medicina, ai scris, ai studiat, ai participat la congrese i conferine. Unde a mai ncput ntre
toate astea i viaa de familie? 61


Toate vacanele mele mi-am chinuit soia i fiul. Eu stteam s lucrez, n timp ce ea sttea cu copilul singur.
Mi-a spus cu tristee, imediat dup cstorie: "Credeam i eu c eti un om normal." (rde)
M-a iertat ntre timp i m-a i ajutat foarte mult n ceea ce am fcut. i acum lucrez n acelai ritm. M aez la 8
dimineaa pe scaun i m mai ridic dup ce s-a lsat noaptea. n Bucureti n-a putea face asta, fiindc sunt
prea multe lucruri care mi distrag atenia. nainte s m apuc s scriu "Inteligena...", am stat mult i m-am
gndit dac s m angajez sau nu la un travaliu imens, riscnd s-mi pierd cei mai frumoi ani, ntre 30 i 40,
pentru un succes incert. i totui mi-am zis c merit. Nimic nu reuete cu adevrat dac nu faci sacrificii.
Bucuriile pe care le triesc acum mi demonstreaz c am pariat corect.

Cei care doresc s comande crile d-lui Dumitru Constantin Dulcan o pot face
pe www.edituraeikon.ro, la tel. 0364/11.72.46,0728.084.803 sau pe email mailto:%20eikondifuzare@yahoo.com



Fragmente din cartea




Fiecrui timp istoric i corespunde o paradigm, un concept, un model de interpretare a realitii, dat de
ansamblul ideilor din acel moment.
Funcia paradigmei este aceea de a oferi un model de gndire i de comportament corespunztor unui timp
istoric determinat. De aceea fiecare timp i are o paradigm a sa.
Pn n secolul al XVI-lea lumea era vzut ca rezultat al creaiei divine. Lumea avea un sens, nscris nintenia
divin n momentul creaiei.
ncepnd cu secolul al XVI-lea, prin lucrrile lui Galileo Galilei, Kepler, Copernic, Descartes, Newton, Francis
Bacon .a., asistm la primul val al revoluiei tiinifice. Pn atunci cunoaterea se reducea la Aristotel i
biseric, raiune i spirit.
tiina ultimilor 400 de ani ncepe cu Galileo, care fixeaz primele canoane ale cercetrii tiinifice. Poate c nu
chiar strin de atitudinea bisericii fa de preocuprile lui tiinifice, Galileo exclude spiritul din ecuaia tiinei.
Ii cere tiinei s aibe ca obiect doar ceea ce are form, numr i micare i poate fi cuantificat, exprimat n
formule matematice. Tot ceea ce ine de psihic, avnd un caracter subiectiv, trebuie exclus din atenia tiinei.
R. D. Layng, un psihiatru englez, menioneaz c sunt astfel lsate n afara tiinei sensibilitatea, percepia,
valorile morale i estetice, spiritul i contiina. O ntreag experien uman este ignorat, laboratorul
rmnnd singurul zeu viabil al tiinei.
Francis Bacon nlocuiete cuvntul Dumnezeu cu cel de natur. Legile lui Dumnezeu, devin acum Legile
naturii. Mai mult, cere tiinei s chinuie" natura pn i va smulge toate secretele.
Rene Descartes pune bazele metodologiei tiinifice moderne, face separarea ntre spirit i materie - res
cogitans i res extensa. Adept al raionalismului n cunoatere, susine c numai tiina poate s accead la
adevruri exacte. Aceast graie acordat tiinelor va fi cea care va motiva mai trziu
atributulscientismului din tiina occidental.
Dei, n cea mai mare parte, tiina i este tributar lui Descartes, opiniile lui nu sunt infailibile, n raport de
ceea ce tim astzi. Nu este nimic n gndire care s aparin corpului i nimic n corp care s aparin
gndirii" spunea el. Este exact opus la tot ceea ce au evideniat tiinele neurocognitive pe care le-am
comentat i noi mai sus. Astzi i-am putea rspunde: Nu este nimic n corp care s nu aparin gndirii". i
este doar una din erorile lui Descartes.
n ceea ce privete concepia sa mecanicist asupra corpului, ntlnit uneori i astzi, trebuie s spun, ca
specialist n domeniu, c este o alt mare eroare a lui Rene Descartes: Nu este nici o diferen ntre maina
fcuta de om i cea fcut de natur", spunea el. Probabil c ar fi aa, dac omul ar reui s construiasc" un
alt om n laborator, combinnd doar elementele chimice existente n structura organismelor vii. Dar asta nu se
va ntmpla niciodat, orict de entuziati am fi.



Prin Newton, viziunea mecanicist asupra lumii obine un statut deplin. Universul este vzut acum ca un
ansamblu de elemente disparate, guvernate de legile gravitaiei, dispus ntr-un spaiu i un timp cu caracter
absolut. Este un Univers cauzal, determinist, efect al unor cauze locale, imediate. Fiind supus unor legiti
matematice, orice eveniment este previzibil, calculabil.
Al doilea val al revoluiei tiinifice ncepe ctre sfritul secolului al XVIII-lea prin Kant, Laplace, Lamarck,
Darwin, Cu vier, Faraday, Maxwell i alii. Se ofer un rspuns convenabil pentru tiin, vizavi de originea
omului, ca i a ntregii lumi vii. Am putea spune c ceea ce a fost Newton pentru fizic, a fost Darwin pentru
biologie. Ctre sfritul secolului al XlX-lea, se prea c marilor ntrebri ale omului li s-a dat rspuns.
Entuziasmul tiinei trebuie s fi fost atunci deplin. Descartes prea s fi avut dreptate. tiina prea s poat
explica tot. Nici un dubiu, zicea el fcnd o alt eroare...
Acestea sunt elementele care au determinat o concepie materialist, fragmentar asupra lumii. Dominnd
celelalte tiine, fizica clasic i-a extins o viziune fizicist n toate domeniile de cunoatere.
Intervenia ntmplrii n evoluie exclude ideea de sens, de rost, de finalitate n existena Universului. Omul
este privit, ca orice alt specie, ca fiind un simplu rod al ntmplrii. Nu exist sens n natur, a decretat
tiina. Nu exist sens n istorie, declar adepii postmodernismului. Nu exist sens n via i, ca urmare, nu
exist nici o moral, care s motiveze conduita uman, spun toi cei ce profit din plin de 80 % din bunurile
lumii. i, pentru a fi ascultai i temui, manevreaz dup bunul plac legile i i construiesc arme care seamn
oc i groaz".
Sensul lumii l confer spiritualitatea, dar ea a fost exclus din tiin. i ca atare lumea este absurd,vin s ne
spun i filosofii.
Aceasta este istoria actului de deces al spiritualitii, care a disprut, ca interes, pentru tiin.
n orice opiune uman sunt ns i avantaje i dezavantaje.
Care sunt avantajele tiinei pentru om? Imense. Popper considera tiina ca fiind cea mai mare mndrie a
omului. Am fi putut spune c este cea mai mare victorie a spiritului uman, dac milioane de oameni n-ar fi fost
victime tocmai ale inveniilor ei. Trebuie s afirmm cu regret c, prin tiin, se salveaz i se ucid i astzi
numeroase viei.
Dar chiar i viziunea mecanicist, reducionist asupra lumii i-a avut avantajele ei. n primul rnd a cita
emanciparea, eliberarea minii umane de nctuarea obscurantismului medieval, de teroarea demonismului
i a superstiiilor la care constat cu stupefacie c, n goan dup ctig, revenim. Cassandre, schizoizi, farsori
fac rating la TV readucnd spaimele Evului Mediu n mini neinstruite.
tiina a mbogit nu numai cunoaterea uman, ci a devenit i un instrument pentru producia bunurilor
necesare vieii.
Condiia uman a fost ameliorat la un nivel nesperat cu numai un secol n urm. Longevitatea uman a
beneficiat de aportul medicinii tiinifice i de ameliorarea condiiilor de igien i de via. Civilizaia uman
tinde spre globalizare i spre extensie, la toate nivelele straturilor sociale prin presiunea exemplului, a
mijloacelor de comunicare i mai ales de deplasare, puse la dispoziia omului de progresul tehnologic.
Tehnologia informaional actual a redus Terra la dimensiunile unui sat, cum se exprima McLuhan. Omul
modern este un om informat, la curent cu tot ceea ce se ntmpl n fiecare clip, inclusiv pe partea cealalt a
Care sunt limitele tiinei actuale i de ce este nevoie de o nou paradigm, a unei contiine elevate,
n opinia mea, omul actual este confruntat n clipa de fa cu o criz moral, spiritual, pe care a numio criza spiritual a omului modern".
Aceast criz se manifest n multe din laturile vieii sale.


tiinific, suntem n faa dilemei - evoluionism sau creaionism. Am abordat mai pe larg subiectul n capitolul
Din nefericire, tiina nu are un cod etic. Este la dispoziia celui ce o pltete.
Armele moderne, ca i cele de exterminare n mas, sunt creaia tiinei... tiina n-are contiin, iar tiina
fr contiin este o ruin a sufletului, spunea nc Francois Rabelais.
Spiritual - domin moda anticulturii n numele postmodernismului. Mai exact sfidarea,deconstrucia, cum zice
Jacques Derrida, a autoritii oricrui sistem de gndire, care pledeaz pentru valorile umane, fundamentale
ca raiunea, cultura, sensul, adevrul i frumosul. Opusul lor - urtul, dezordinea, ignorana, anarhia sunt
noile valori" ridicate la rang de filosofic.
Exaltarea instinctualitii, printr-un exhibiionism care abuzeaz de toate cile de exprimare nelsnd nimic
neinfestat, nimic neocat i bulversat, este de asemenea o expresie a culturii" postmoderniste.
O caracteristic a postmodernismului cum l-a numit Jean-Frangois Lyotard, o constituie pluralismul,tolerarea
tuturor modelor, fr nici o discriminare. Dar, ceea ce constatm astzi, nu este o tolerare a valorilor
tradiionale, ci o luare n derdere i o evitare a acestora ca fiind perimate. Filosofia postmodernist ar prea
s aibe o oarecare justificare i anume aceea c tot ceea ce este omenesc trebuie s fie admis cu drepturi
egale de a fi expus public. Numai c nu este vorba de a se permite afirmarea tuturor valorilor spiritului i
culturii, ci i a subteranelor condiiei umane. Care sunt acestea? Era suficient o vizit la Muzeul Gugenheim
din New York, n 2004, ca s te lmureti. Sau s citeti unele cri. De la imagine la limbaj, totul este permis.
Eu sunt de acord, mai ales ca medic, cu complexitatea condiiei umane, care nu nseamn numai spirit, ci i
inevitabile cerine fiziologice, atta doar c omenirii i-au trebuit mii de ani de a se desprinde de
comportamentul celorlalte animale, de a separa i a face art din cele ale spiritului i a trece la
capitolul intimitate cele ale biologiei. Nu tot ceea ce ne bntuie prin intestine poate face obiectul artei i
al transparenei, de care se face atta caz n lumea actual! Era una din marile victorii ale civilizaiei: civilizarea
simurilor. i una din marile diferene dintre noi i necuvnttoare, care nu au auzit de civilizaia sfincterelorn ultim instan este o chestiune de gust. Unora le plac mirosurile pestileniale. i probabil c trebuie s
gndim ca predecesorii: de gustibus non disputandum.
n ciuda raiunii pe care ne-o arogm, persistena rzboaielor, a terorismului, ca mijloc de rezolvare
aconflictelor interumane i a acaparrii de resurse, este nc un semn al crizei morale a omului modern,
motenii"' unui trecut ancestral, de care nu vrea s se debaraseze.
Incontiena cu care pentru bani sacrificm cultura, natura, demnitatea uman i relaia interuman se
nscrie n aceeai not a absurdului.
Psihologia oficial este nc tributar unei concepii mecaniciste despre biologie. Ignorarea
ostentativ a o serie de date noi, care se cer interpretate
cum sunt experienele morii clinice, experiena psihologiei transpersonale, vindecarea de boli grave prin
mijloace exclusiv psihologice, rmne fr o explicaie.
Violena contra omului i a animalelor ne ntoarce la insecuritatea vieii din Evul Mediu.
Violena contra planetei, care ar trebui s fie vzut ea nsi ca o fiin vie, o ncarc cu negativitate excesiv
declannd evenimente climatice i geofizice.
De ce politic i nu tiin, tehnocraie? S lum un exemplu. De ce construirea unei osele ar trebui s
depind de o decizie politic i nu de una economic?



Se aduc o mulime de acuze politicilor tradiionale: demagogie, manipulare, minciun, fraud, agresivitate,
crearea de scenarii, rfuial cu adversarii n stil de mahala, care provoac repulsie oricrui om de bun sim.
De ce orice profesie pretinde pregtire, competen, iar a face politic, nu? ntr-un secol n care, n condiiile
actualei evoluii sociale, relaiile interumane au ajuns la un nivel att de complex, este oare uor de orientat
fr a avea competena necesar?
n plan social este o disjuncie flagrant ntre bogia excesiv, cu mult peste nevoile materiale ale unui grup
restrns de indivizi i srcia umilitoare a majoritii, observaie pe care o fcea i John Locke n secolul al
XVIII-lea. Astzi 80 % din bunurile lumii actuale sunt deinute de 20 % din populaia globului.
Este moral? Contrazice orice form de moral - cretin, laic sau a bunului sim. Nu pledez pentru un
egalitarism, pe care i natura l contrazice, dar nici pentru umilina care nu-i ofer unui om dect dreptul de a
muri de foame.
Dezvoltarea economic i, mai ales, tehnologic n ritmul i n modul actual, conform analitilor n domeniu,
va avea o serie de consecine nefaste: epuizarea resurselor planetare, dezechilibrul geofizic i climatic,
poluarea, nu numai chimic, ci i radioactiv i electromagnetic, distrugerea fondului forestier care este
astzi redus la 28 - 30 % din suprafaa Terrei. La nceputul secolului al XX- lea, reprezenta nc 80 %.
n plan ecologic, natura n-a fost niciodat att de mult pgubit, aa cum a fcut-o omul, probabil c mai nti
din ignorana care astzi nu mai poate fi invocat. Poluarea aerului, apei, pmntului i inclusiv a plantelor i
cerealelor cu care ne hrnim, este un fapt cunoscut de toat lumea.
Interese meschine sfideaz toate pronosticurile dezastruoase, referitoare la consecine, toate opiniile
exprimate prin mass-media i continu tacit, individual sau prin decizii oficiale s defrieze pdurile i s
distrug vegetaia din orae ca i din jurul lor. Cinii latr, caravana trece" rmne o cugetare perpetuu
Nici o specie nu s-a implicat att de violent n distrugerea propriului mediu ca omul.

Suntem o specie sinuciga!

Din cauza polurii i a defririlor, zilnic dispare o specie. Planeta devine zi de zi tot mai srac. i ultima
specie, care va disprea, spun analitii, va fi omul...
Nu nvm nimic din istorie. Munii i colinele din jurul Mediteranei au rmas cu stncile goale ca urmare a
sacrificrii pdurilor pentru nevoile construciilor de nave pentru rzboi i comer, ni se spune.
Cnd romanii stpneau Efesul, acesta ajunsese unul din oraele - port cele mai bogate din Imperiul Roman.
Era, i la propriu i la figurat, un ora de marmur alb, pur. i astzi se mai vd relicvele strzilor pavate cu
marmur i ale cldirilor somptuoase din acea vreme.
n incontiena lor au tiat pdurile de pe versanii munilor i colinelor nconjurtoare, pentru nevoi de
construcie. Solul, rmas fr rezistena pe care i-o ofereau rdcinile copacilor i tulpinile lor, a plecat odat
cu apa spre mare. Prin depunere, portul a fost acoperit de ml, apa s-a retras i activitatea portuar a ncetat.
Acum marea se afl la distan de muli kilometri de ora. Efesul, oraul n care Pa vel i-a desfurat o bun
parte din apostolatul su, a murit odat cu marea, care l-a prsit. Astzi vedem doar urmele mreiei de
Violena contra planetei prin defriare i poluare i prin toate deeurile rezultate din activitatea uman nu este
lipsit de urmri. Pmntul reacioneaz ca o fiin vie. Negativitatea acumulat va declana, pentru a se
reechilibra, evenimente geofizice i geoclimatice de tipul seismelor, uraganelor sau altor catastrofe.
Fr o tiin a spiritului este greu de neles c urmrile modului nostru de gndire i de aciune se resfrng
asupra lumii ntregi, asupra planetei i Cosmosului prin conexiuni mult mai complexe i mai subtile dect ne
putem imagina.



Dac ntreaga criz spiritual, n care ne aflm este rezultatul concepiei noastre eronate despre om i Univers,
i dac consecinele acesteia conduc lumea n pragul unui impas, dincolo de care nu urmeaz dect prbuirea
ntregului edificiu, cldit cu trud n milenii de evoluie a civilizaiei, aa dup cum ne avertizeaz o mulime de
surse i dup cum putem observa cu propria noastr minte, ce ne rmne de fcut? Pentru ce s
optm? Spirit sau materie? Omul ndumnezeit sau omul-animal?
S optm pentru un materialism utilitarist, care n competiia pentru existen, din orgolii, din dorina de
dominaie i de navuire a generat rzboaie, a creat un echilibru internaional instabil, fragil, monitorizat de
fora armelor, gata oricnd s uzeze de acel minut, un singur minut n care planeta poate fi aruncat printr-o
simpl apsare de buton n tcerea neantului, din care a venit? Sau s optm pentru alt contiin bazatpe
o nou spiritualitate, o nou paradigm menit s deschid un alt viitor omenirii?
Suntem liberi s alegem.
Omul viitorului va fi unul iniiatic, spiritualizat, contient de originea sacr i de sensul venirii sale pe lume, ne
spune Jean-Paul Bertrand.
Omul viitorului va fi obligat, ca alternativ a auto-extinciei, spre care merge cu pai repezi, s-i edifice onou
contiin, o nou spiritualitate n acord cu sensul su originar. Criza moral a lumii moderne, la care asistm
cu o stranie i a spune, incontient pasivitate, este expresia nivelului sczut al contiinei umane. Pentru c
factorul fundamental n trirea uman l constituie contiina sa.
Este nevoie de o alt contiin, de o tiin a contiinei n acord cu ntreaga cunoatere ncepnd de la
tradiiile spirituale ale lumii antice, traversnd istoria religiilor i ajungnd la achiziiile celor mai noi tiine
despre om i Univers. Basarab Nicolescu, subliniaz i el acest imperativ afirmnd: nelepii tuturor
timpurilor au neles c evoluia omului este evoluia contiinei sale".
Facilitatea comunicrii n lumea modern permite accesul la informaie pentru o imens majoritate a lumii,
pregtind astfel terenul pentru o nelegere a adevrului despre sine.
Omul are nevoie de o alt istorie, propice armoniei dintre sine i Univers, dintre sine i natur, dintre oamenii
de pretutindeni, transgresnd obstacolele puse de apartenena la o religie, ar, cultur sau sistem politic.
Egalitatea n fata anselor, accesul demn la resurse, securitatea i respectul persoanei, pacea i armonia dintre
oameni nu pot deveni realitate dect n condiiile unei mutaii n contiin, n gndire.
Este nendoielnic pentru mine c acesta a fost dintotdeauna un vis, c omenirea a fost amgit cu multe
utopii, de-a lungul istoriei sale. Dar nu numai c aceste premise plutesc n aer", sunt ns tot mai pregnant
comentate i de o serie de alte surse, din care a dori s amintesc doar cteva, care mi se par a fi mai credibile.
Voi cita pentru nceput povestea plin de dramatism i cu multe elemente de cunoatere utile, trit de
Shelley Yates din Canada (Halifax, Noua Scoie), n noiembrie 2002.
mpreun cu fiul su n vrst de 4 ani, n timp ce se deplasa cu propriul automobil, acesta derapeaz prin
acvaplanare i se scufund ntr-o mlatin. Shelley ncearc s deschid portierele mainii, dar acestea rmn
blocate. O ap rece i ntunecat invadeaz interiorul automobilului. Este disperat s-i salveze copilul, dar
apa ptrunde n interior i nu le mai las nici un spaiu liber pentru a respira, nainte de a-i pierde cunotina,
aude o voce care i spune s rmn calm, pn ce vor veni salvatorii.
Dup 15 minute salvatorii o scot fr cunotina din automobil. Dup alte 7 minute este reanimat. In acea
clip reuete s spun salvatorilor i de existena copilului su n interiorul mainii. Trecuser deja
22 deminute, n final este scos i copilul afar, fiind de urgen expediat, fr cunotin, la un spital de copii.
Medicii de acolo i comunic mamei, judecnd dup normele nxedicinei actuale, starea fr sperane a
copilului su. Creierul era mort i toate organele erau invadate de snge. Este sftuit s l ia acas, pentru c,
chiar dac ar reui s-1 reanimeze, ar rmne doar ntr-o stare vegetativ. Dar vocea din eter i spune altceva:
Ai ncredere. Urmeaz cu strictee aceste instruciuni". i o sftuiete s fac apel la mai multe persoane,


pentru a-i reface cmpul de energie" al copilului n edine de 20 de minute, aplicate la interval de o jumtate
de or, timp de 3 zile ncontinuu. Fiecare persoan venit n acest scop era rugat s-i ofere copilului energia
sa pozitiv i iubirea sa". Probabil c medicii au fost i ei surprini i curioi s vad efectul unui astfel de
experiment, care eluda toate canoanele tiinei medicale i au acceptat propunerea mamei copilului. Dup 72
de ore copilul deschide ochii i i recunoate mama. Dup dou sptmni de recuperare era prezent pe locul
de joac al copiilor. Era complet recuperat. Incredibilul se produsese.
ntoars acas cu copilul, vocile continu s-i vorbeasc, spunndu-i c omenirea i-a pierdut controlul, i-a
pierdut legtura cu Dumnezeu i cu Pmntul i c ntregul Univers este deranjat. O roag s transmit un
mesaj de dincolo" pentru ntreaga omenire, i spun c este n puterea oamenilor ca prin iubirea tuturor, prin
sentimente de solidaritate i de compasiune, s renasc Pmntul i s-1 vindece, pregtind o nou etap n
istoria lumii. Va fi un timp al pcii i al armoniei. Aceasta este voina exprimat de dincolo". Salvarea lor i
mai ales reanimarea imposibil n condiii normale a copilului, s-au voit a fi dovezi ale existenei unei puteri,
care ne supravegheaz i ne ndeamn s ne trezim spre binele nostru.Este nevoie ca oamenii din toate
colurile globului s se uneasc pentru a aprinde Sistemul Energetic Divin al planetei" i a o lua de la capt,
aa cum au procedat cu fiul su.
I s-a mai spus, de asemenea, c toi oamenii sunt conectai printr-o reea la Surs. Toate speciile de animale
au propria reea, care le permite comunicarea ntre ele. De aici deriv comportamentul lor coerent, inteligent
pe care, n parantez fie spus, noi l atribuim doar instinctelor. Aa, de pild, i s-a spus, cum sunt animalele
avizate prin aceast reea de iminena catastrofelor naturale, reuind astfel s evite, dup cum tim,
i iat ce amnunt interesant, cu trimitere la texte cunoscute, urmeaz acum: omul a ales cu multe mii de ani
n urm s se deconecteze de la reeaua comun pentru a avea liber arbitru.
Pentru mine aceast aseriune este uimitoare, nc n 1978 scriam n Inteligena materiei c, n timp ce omului
i s-a dat liberul arbitru, care i permite s discearn realitatea i s aib opiuni, restul lumii vii este
dependent de inteligenta naturii.
Liberul arbitru, spune mai departe mesajul primit de Shelley, i-a permis omului s dispun de sine nsui/ dar i
s comit erori, care au devastat planeta. Acum cumulul de erori i-a atins limita i a continua poate precipita
sfritul Pmntului". De aceea suntem sftuii/ insistent rugai s ne reconectm la reeauaPmntului
pentru a-l vindeca oferindu-i un val de iubire".
I s-a explicat c aa dup cum cmpul de energie al fiului su a fost grav deteriorat, aa este acum i cel a
Pmntului. De aceea este nevoie de refacerea vitalitii planetei, prin rencrcarea sa cu energia
sentimentelor noastre de iubire, de pace i armonie.
Avem, prin aceast ntmplare", demonstraia ideii c, la nevoie, Sursa renun la pilotul" nostru automat i
preia iniiativa. Acest copil, cu date identificabile, nu ar fi avut nici o ans de supravieuire i mai ales, de
revenire la normal, fr o intervenie din eter".
Sunt de reinut din aceast dram cteva elemente foarte importante pentru cunoaterea noastr.
Universul, Sursa de dincolo de noi, nu vorbete cnd vrem noi s-i testm existena, ci doar atunci cnd vrea s
intervin, dup criterii ce ne scap. Unul ar fi acesta, de a ne da un semnal de existena sa voind s ne
transmit ceva. Un alt motiv de intervenie concret, evident n viaa noastr ar putea fi dictat de locul i
rolul pe care l avem n funcionarea Universului. Sunt scrise volume ntregi cu istorii de acest gen, pe care
lumea le ignor. Intervenia n drama lui Shelley avea un scop precis: prin miracolul svrit s ateste
veridicitatea Sursei, care implor omenirea ca, n interesul su, s se reconecteze la origini, la reeaua
Pmntului i a Universului aducnd pacea i armonia, de care are o vital nevoie.
Este, aadar, nc un semnal de alarm, de ast dat trimis din eter. Avem n acelai timp i explicaia crizelor
care au bntuit omenirea, a nemplinirilor, a suferinei i a nenumratelor sale erori prin deconectarea de



Surs, prin ignorarea sau negarea acesteia i prin deciziile arbitrare, pe care i le-a asumat uznd de liberul su
i nc o concluzie, plin de amar: prin aciunile sale intempestive i nenelepte, omul a devastat planeta
ajungnd la limita care i precede sfritul. Este pentru mine de neneles incontiena cu care ne distrugem
propria cas, propriul leagn, animai de interese i de politicianisme aberante.
Quo vadis,unde mergi? Oprete-te, omule! ne strig Universul. Teribil fiin poate s fie omul, dac i
Universul s-a nspimntat de el! Repetm cumva mitul lui Faust cu ucenicul" care nu mai poate stpni urgia
forelor strnite? n mod ciudat noi am devenit singura fiin care s-a implicat n distrugerea propriului su
leagn - Pmntul.
S ascultm i alte voci venite din eter". Cine sunt cei 13 Hathori? Nu tiu cine sunt, dar observ c sunt
excelent informai despre treburile noastre... foarte pmnteti. Ce ne spun cei 13 Hathori? S vedem.
Vremurile ce vin, zic ei, sunt foarte grele. Ne ndreptm cu mare vitez spre autodistrugere.
Credinele noastre, modelele noastre culturale i politice, mentalitatea i viciile noastre cultiv idei, care vor
distruge viaa. Stpnii lumii" (cine-or fi oare acetia?!) avnd interese bine intite se opun spiritualizrii
lumii. Doresc s controleze i s manevreze lumea n continuare. S neleg c aceti stpni in cu dinii" s
rmn la concepia care consider omul un simplu accident al naturii, un animal, care poate fi vnat ca orice
alt animal din plcere sau pentru a elibera spaiul pe care l ocup n beneficiul lor?
Cei 13 Hathori, un numr angoasant prin unele pri ale lumii, ne mai spun c ne aflm ca un sandvi, la mijloc
ntre presiunea spiritual exercitat din Cosmos i ntre puterile care vor s ne controleze. Energia unei
contiine nalte ar veni din adncul Universului, dar forele care stpnesc lumea i se opun, i rezultatul
exercitrii forelor contrare unei evoluii spirituale este exprimat prin amplificarea haosului climatic,
distrugerea resurselor forestiere i epuizarea celor subterane, seisme, vulcani, poluare, boli, violen i
Ce se poate face pentru a supravieui? Iat sfatul dat de Hathori.
n plan global se impune o evoluie spiritual prin nlarea contiinei la nivelul ntregii lumi.
n plan individual, pentru a fi protejat de haosul lumii actuale", ni se recomand conectarea mental, n
fiecare zi, cu sinele interior asupra cruia s se proiecteze sentimente de gratitudine, apreciere, fericire.
Chimia acestor sentimente, vom spune noi, ne va fi benefic pentru sntatea fizic i psihic.
O observaie demn de reinut: ni se spune c aceast comutare a gndirii pe un registru pozitiv este benefic,
nu numai pentru noi, ci i pentru Universul care le primete, n acest fel druim ceva din noi i Universului,
cruia i datorm viaa.
Suntem avizai de asemenea c sunt fore negative, care vor s ne nspimnte i nu trebuie s le dm
Orice preocupare menit s ne ofere un motiv de satisfacie, de bucurie - lectur, muzic, spectacol, plimbare
n natur ne nal contiina i ne permite s supravieuim n aceast atmosfer de negativitate a lumii
moderne, intenionat regizat prin avalana de tiri care fac din or n or bilanul rzboaielor, crimelor,
conflictelor, violurilor, accidentelor de pe ntregul mapamondul, care anun mereu tot alte i alte scumpiri i
creteri ale inflaiei, asezonate cu strlucirea de gablonz a divelor" de o zi i opulena sfidtoare, afiat de
indivizi care au fost mai iute de mn dect alii la mprirea przii.
Spuneam c nu tiu cine sunt aceti Hathori i nu a fi nclinat s-i cred prea mult, dac ceva nu m-ar frapa n
discursul lor. Este o coinciden ciudat ntre ceea ce spun ei i ceea ce spune David R. Hawkins, un reputat
profesor de psihiatrie din SUA, cnd atribuie ntreaga responsabilitate a bulversrii spirituale a omenirii de
ctre cei care i arog cu de la sine putere rolul de stpni" ai lumii. Eu nu cred n existena lor, doar ni se
spune c trim ntr-o lume liber. Eu nu tiu s m fi ntrebat cineva dac am nevoie de o alt minte dect a


mea, care s-mi spun ce este alb i ce este negru. M poate eventual obliga prin for s admit convenional
un adevr" confecionat conjunctural, dar nimeni nu m-a convins i nu m va convinge vreodat, n afar de
propria mea minte.
i apoi m ntreb cum ar putea aciona i influena din umbr soarta lumii aceste fore oculte? Ni se spune c
prin crearea unor zone de conflict, care au rolul de a menine o continu instabilitatea a lumii i de a arta
eventualilor ndrznei cine sunt adevraii stpni prin susinerea unor instituii destabilizatoare care,
neavnd nici lege i nici bun sim, denigreaz tot ceea ce este valoare capabil s zideasc i exalt tot ceea ce
este nonvaloare. Exist totui n prezent o preocupare, la nivelul ntregii lumi, privind viitorul su. Fr
excepie, toate sursele prevd ca unic soluie la problemele lumii actuale schimbarea actualei paradigme,
promovarea unei noi contiine - idee pentru care am pledat de mult vreme n scrierile mele, independent de
sursele actuale. Este logic s trim cum gndim. Eu nu cred c rdcina tuturor relelor este religia cum susine
Richard Dawkins, ci concepia noastr despre lume tributar tiinelor secolului al XlX-lea. Atta vreme ct
vom continua s atribuim omului i vieii o origine ntmpltoare, nu vom nva niciodat s le acordm
respectul de entiti sacre. M repet. Imaginea eronat de animal ce poate fi ucis fr mil, existent n
mintea noastr, este sursa tuturor relelor.
Vom reda i opinia n acest sens a lui G. Braden, geolog, specialist n tehnica de transmitere a informaiei,
scriitor i valoros filosof al culturii.
Braden vorbete de asemenea despre iminena venirii unei noi ere n existena omenirii plecnd de la
observaii de ordin geofizic.
n consonan cu mesajele anterioare, Braden susine i el c trim un timp fr precedent, al unor
evenimente dramatice, care oblig la forarea unei noi paradigme, a unei noi contiine cu un model de gndire
i de percepie nedistructiv ca cel vechi, ci dimpotriv, unicul nscris n legea divin a fiinrii noastre. i, din
nou, o frapant coinciden, ntocmai ca n mesajul primit de Shelley Yates, i Braden amintete de sfritul
epocii de separare" a omului de Sursa Creatoare i de reintrare n perimetrul su de protecie, n acelai sens,
David R. Hawkins vorbete despre un Dumnezeu, care este acum i aici, i nu undeva i cndva.
n prezent, ne spune Braden, are loc o scdere rapid a amplitudinii cmpului magnetic al planetei. Acest
fenomen va opera firesc modificri i n cmpurile fizice mentale i informaionale ale corpului uman, inclusiv
asupra modului nostru de gndire.
Timpul reapropierii de Sursa Creatoare i al purificrii planetei a fost anticipat, de asemenea, de toate religiile
i tradiiile spirituale atribuindu-i-se denumiri diverse. Braden utilizeaz sintagma de proces Christic".
Mi se pare a fi interesant sinteza istoriei acestei nou timp fcut de Braden, pentru c anticiparea sa coincide
n mod straniu cu concluziile total independente ale multor oameni de tiin i cu ultimele date venite din
partea neurotiinelor i a experienelor din timpul morii clinice. Coinciden pe care o gsesc a fi mai
degrab semnificativ, dect ntmpltoare.
Tradiiile amerindiene, nelepii triburilor Lakota Cherokee i Hopi au prevestit ncheierea unui ciclu cu
nceperea unui altul nou n istoria actual a lumii.
Fiecare ciclu vechi s-ar fi ncheiat printr-un colaps - nghe, potop, foc etc. Fiecare ciclu nou a adus o nou
ordine, cu restabilirea dezechilibrelor timpului trecut.
Calendarul aztec precizeaz c omenirea se afla la sfritul celui de al V-lea ciclu, numit Soare.
Dup calendarul maya ultimul ciclu s-ar termina n 2012, an care este i ultimul nscris n numrtoarea lor
Tablele de smarald ale lui Toth", datnd de mai multe mii de ani, vorbesc ntre altele i de avioanele de lupt
din lumea modern!: Cnd din nou omul va cuceri oceanul i va zbura prin aer cu aripi precum psrile...va
ncepe vremea rzboiului... dintre ntuneric i lumin. Un popor se va ridica mpotriva altui popor folosind



forele ntunecate pentru a zgudui Pmntul". (Cred c se face referire la timpurile moderne pentru c nu mi
nchipui c se putea zgudui" Pmntul cu bta i cu sgeile pe care le aveau pe atunci).
Ni se spune c, ncepnd din 2012, Pmntul ar intra ntr-o zon de nalt frecven, care va presupune i
adaptarea organismului uman la noua frecven, nlarea contiinei cu obinerea de noi posibiliti de
percepie/ inclusiv n planuri nc invizibile, va defini lumea viitoare ca fiind una a contiinei i aspiritualitii.
Braden folosete denumirea de frecven christica i-i atribuie proprietatea de percepie pluridimensional
(5D). Denumirea nu a fost aleas ntmpltor, ci are o ampl motivare. Gndirea corespunztoare acestei noi
frecvene este identic cu nvtura dat de Iisus ucenicilor si n urm cu 2000 de ani. Se poate spune c este
o revenire a sa, pe care lisus nsui a prevzut-o cnd a spus c va trece o mie de ani i apoi o alt mie de ani i
lumea va reveni la nvtura sa. In noul model de gndire sunt depite tiparele vechilor paradigme, n care se
cultiva ura, frica, violena, rzbunarea, crima i rzboiul. Purttorii vechilor tipare de gndire vor deveni
incompatibili cu noua frecven. Va fi o selecie pe criterii spirituale, dependente de capacitatea de evoluie
Scopul acestei mari treceri la un nou ciclu n evoluia spiritual a lumii l consider echilibrarea i vindecarea
suprem a Pmntului i a tuturor formelor de via". Este ceea ce Braden a numit trezirea la punctul zero".
Bogia de informaii oferite de Braden pledeaz pentru ideea c trecerea la o alt epoc, n scopul
reechilibrrii i purificrii Pmntului de rezidurile gndirii i ale aciunilor umane, nu este mprumutat de la
Shelley Yates care, dup cum am vzut, a receptat-o n condiii complet inedite, ci constituie o alt surs, care
se nscrie n acelai sens.
Reinem nc o observaie interesant oferit de Braden. Intensitatea cmpului magnetic al Terrei s-ar afla
ntr-o continu i rapid scdere corespunznd parametrilor din vremea n care s-au petrecut evenimentele
legate de naterea lui lisus. Aceste valori reduse ale cmpului magnetic ar fi propice pentru apariia de noi
paradigme, de nceput al unei noi istorii.
Din acest interesant comentariu fcut de Braden asupra erei corespunztoare unei noi contiine am sublinia
cteva observaii.
Este, mai nti, o ntlnire ciudat, peste timp, a unor surse care susin o idee comun: vechi tradiii spirituale
amerindiene, un om de tiin i cultur i o femeie simpl, obinuit, fr nici o preocupare de ordin spiritual.
Toate aceste surse ne vorbesc despre iminenta venirii unui timp al unor mari schimbri n istoria gndirii i a
Experiena a artat c nici o predicie nu se ndeplinete 100%. n consecin i acestea ar putea rmne doar
simple iluzii, dar trebuie spus c, dac omenirea nu va schimba nimic n comportamentul su i va continua s
se manifeste cu aceeai agresivitate i violent, ntr-un rzboi al tuturor contra tuturor, n condiiile
acumulrii actualelor mijloace de rzboi, s-ar putea ca nu numai s nu ajung la un noi ciclu de evoluie, ci s-i
rateze definitiv orice ans de a continua.
(Fragmente din volumul :
Dumitru Constantin Dulcan n cutarea sensului pierdut,
Editura EIKON, Cluj, 2008)

Alte resurse pe Internet si site-uri pe care le urmresc sau le recomand:

http://karlfriedgrafdurckheim.blogspot.com/ - un blog dedicat lui K.G. Durckheim
www.edituraherald.ro - Editura Herald - Prin carte dincolo de carte. O editur consacrat mplinirii spirituale; o palet bogat de ci si traditii

http://www.efpublishing.ro/ Elena Francisc Publishing - Cartea care ti schimb viziunea

http://www.piticipecreier.ro/ Pentru a gsi cel mai bun pret pentru o carte de pe piat. Se pare c nu ia n calcul editura crtii respective; de
aceea ncercati mai nti s vedeti pretul la editur si apoi tineti cont de sfaturile date de site.

http://www.cartiprivate.ro/ - Crti private - un site foarte util, veti vedea: pentru a cuta crti sau a valorifica crtile proprii



http://blanq.blogspot.com/ Follow me...Totul este plin de Dumnezeu...i-am zis eu
www.sfintiiarhangheli.ro Maica Siluana Vlad - recomand n special rubrica Maica Siluana v rspunde.
http://iesireadinlabirint.wordpress.com/ IESIREA DIN LABIRINT Trezia mintii si cerul inimii
http://www.psihoterapieiasi.ro/ - Psihoterapie IASI - Ctlina Dasclu
http://copiiminunati.ro/blog/- Copii minunati - -nou la pagina de LINKURI
http://www.oglindanet.ro/ - OGLINDANET - revista electronic de informatie si analiz cultural-religioas coordonat de Cristian Bdilit
http://scriptorie.wordpress.com/ - Scriptorie - recenzii de carte crestina
http://www.bookblog.ro/ - Recenzii de carte
http://www.bookiseala.ro/ - Magazin de crti
http://danutm.wordpress.com/ - PERSONA - Dnut Mnstireanu
http://www.contributors.ro/ - Texte cu valoare adugat
http://adamaica.wordpress.com/ - Lumea adam(a)ic
http://drezina.wordpress.com/ - Teofil Stanciu - mi place cum gndeste...
http://amintiricusfinti.wordpress.com/ - Amintiri cu sfinti (Daniel Brnzei)
www.resursecrestine.ro Resurse crestine (evanghelic)
www.nistea.com - site-ul preotului Iulian Nistea(Paris)
http://tainacasatoriei.wordpress.com/ Taina Cstoriei
http://corinanegreanu.blogspot.com/ Corina Negreanu
http://www.eugeniavoda.ro/ro/emisiuni/diverse - Eugenia Vod - Profesionistii
http://parinteleteofilparaian.blogspot.com/ Un blog dedicat printelui Teofil Prian
http://www.fundatiaarsenieboca.ro/ Fundatia ARSENIE BOCA
http://nicolaesteinhardt.wordpress.com/ Blog dedicat printelui Nicolae Steinhardt
http://www.richard-wurmbrand.ro/ Un site dedicat Pastorului Richard Wurmbrand
http://rw100.persecution.com/ Richard Wurmbrand centennial celebration - Voice Of Martyrs
http://vladimiri-ghika-amicus.blogspot.com/ Un site dedicat Monseniorului Vladimir Ghika
http://copilarieregasita.webs.com/ - Copilrie regsit
Hrana vie - Pentru o viat sntoas, sub toate aspectele ei
http://cultural.srr.ro/ - Radio Romnia Cultural - on line
http://www.hotnews.ro/programul_tv/ Program TV
http://www.dilemaveche.ro/ - Dilema veche
http://www.revista22.ro - Revista 22
http://convorbiri-literare.dntis.ro/ - Convorbiri literare
http://www.ideiindialog.ro/ - Idei n dialog
http://www.observatorcultural.ro/ - Observator cultural
http://www.revistaverso.ro/ - Revista Verso (UBB Cluj, Fnd. Ideea European)
http://www.romlit.ro/ - Romnia literar
http://www.romaniaculturala.ro/- Romnia cultural
http://www.timpul.ro/ - Timpul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzHE2LROYoo Vlad Muresan despre revista VERSO
http://www.revistatribuna.ro - Revista TRIBUNA
http://klaudiastan.wordpress.com/ Claudia Stan - Deus meus in te confido
http://www.cristianbadilita.ro Cristian Badilita
http://ferestreinpridvor.blogspot.com/ Ferestre n pridvor - Rzvan Ionescu
http://discipulussimplex.wordpress.com/ Discipulus Simplex - Dragos Mrsanu



http://vladmuresan.wordpress.com/ Vlad Muresan
DEX - Dictionar explicativ al limbii romne
Familia Regal a Romniei

http://www.familiaregala.ro/ - Familia Regal a Romniei

http://www.fpmr.ro/- ASR Principesa Margareta
http://www.princeradu.ro/ - ASR Principele Radu
Biblia on line:

http://biblia.evanghelic.ro/ - Traducerea Cornilescu

http://www.bibliaortodoxa.ro/ - Traducerea ortodox
http://www.bibleserver.com/ - n alte limbi, mai multe versiuni
In limba franceza:

http://www.nouvellescles.com - Nouvelles cls

http://www.caravancafe-des-arts.com/- Caravancaf des arts (Basarab Nicolescu)
http://www.jeanyvesleloup.com - Jean Yves Leloup
www.trilogies.org - Trilogies - Maxime Egger
www.unine.ch/ Lytta Basset
www.pagesorthodoxes.net (Pagini ortodoxe & icoane - exceptional)
www.centre-bethanie.org (BETHANIE, Alphonse Goettmann)- si engleza
www.ariane-buisset.com Ariane Buisset
www.stanrougier.com (Stan Rougier)
www.charlesdefoucauld.org (despre Charles de Foucauld)
www.mauricezundel.ch (despre Maurice Zundel)
www.annesigier.qc.ca/zundel(despre Maurice Zundel)
www.teilhard.org (despre Pierre Teilhard de Chardin)
http://seraphim.over-blog.com/ - Blog-ul lui Marc-Elie
http://manuavecnous.blogspirit.com/ - Blog-ul lui Emanuel
In limba englez (rus)
www.mitras.ru/eng/ Un site dedicat Mitropolitului Antonie Bloom(de Suroj)

Cteva secvente video remarcabile

n francez, englez sau german:

Karlfried Graf Durckheim


Viktor E. Frankl
Viktor Frankl on Youth in Search of Meaning 1972

Frankl Resources of Survival '87

Viktor Frankl "Man Alive"

Interview with Dr. Viktor Frankl

Logotheory & Logotherapy

Ultimate Meaning and Religion




Jean-Yves Leloup, n francez:

Le corps ou l'identite perdue

Un art de l'attention

Sur le chemin de ma vie. Rencontre avec Marie-Andre Michaud

Dieu ? C'est qui ? C'est quoi ?


Christiane Singer, n francez:

Si aici o secventa cu
despre SECTE...!!!
Omul este iremediabil religios...


Annick de Souzenelle, n francez, aici:

Le symbolisme du corps humain:


Carl Jung speaks about Death


Anthony de Mello